Subcutaneous immunoglobulin in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated feasibility, safety, and total resource use of subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) in a pilot study of patients who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) over a 6-month period. METHODS: A total of 20 eligible patients were treated with SCIG at 0.1 g/kg/week for up to 6 months. Patients were matched to 20 concurrent intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) controls. Clinical outcomes measured included adverse reactions, healthcare resource use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL). (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03401268.) RESULTS: Groups were comparable in terms of age, weight, sex, transplant indication, donor type, and conditioning intensity. All 20 IVIG patients completed 6 consecutive months of therapy compared with 13/20 (65%) SCIG patients. There were no adverse reactions in IVIG patients, compared with six (30%) SCIG patients. All adverse reactions in SCIG patients were grade I, transient, and required no medical intervention. Median overall cost per patient was lower with SCIG than with IVIG ($9,756 vs. $13,780, p = .046). Among patients who completed 6 months of SCIG, median preference and satisfaction scores were 100%. Over the 6-month period, QOL scores remained stable in SCIG patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a subgroup of patients, SCIG was associated with high patient satisfaction and a reduction in total healthcare costs compared with IVIG in a cohort of HCT patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".