Pre-Transplant Marital Status and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evidence about the impact of marital status before hematopoietic cell transplantation (hct) on outcomes after hct is conflicting. Methods: We identified patients 40 years of age and older within the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry who underwent hct between January 2008 and December 2015. Marital status before hct was declared as one of: married or living with a partner, single (never married), separated or divorced, and widowed. We performed a multivariable analysis to determine the association of marital status with outcomes after hct. Results: We identified 10,226 allogeneic and 5714 autologous hct cases with, respectively, a median follow-up of 37 months (range: 1–102 months) and 40 months (range: 1–106 months). No association between marital status and overall survival was observed in either the allogeneic (p = 0.58) or autologous (p = 0.17) setting. However, marital status was associated with grades 2–4 acute graft-versus-host disease (gvhd), p < 0.001, and chronic gvhd, p = 0.04. The risk of grades 2–4 acute gvhd was increased in separated compared with married patients [hazard ratio (hr): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.03 to 1.24], and single patients had a reduced risk of grades 2–4 acute gvhd (hr: 0.87; 95% ci: 0.77 to 0.98). The risk of chronic gvhd was lower in widowed compared with married patients (hr: 0.82; 95% ci: 0.67 to 0.99). Conclusions: Overall survival after hct is not influenced by marital status, but associations were evident between marital status and grades 2–4 acute and chronic gvhd. To better appreciate the effects of marital status and social support, future research should consider using validated scales to measure social support and patient and caregiver reports of caregiver commitment, and to assess health-related quality of life together with health care utilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".