MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176205187 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2021.06.028

A Prospective Cohort Study Comparing Long-Term Outcomes with and without Palifermin in Patients Receiving Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Hematologic Malignancies

2021· article· en· W3176205187 on OpenAlexaff
Wael Saber, Patricia Steinert, Mei-Jie Zhang, Min Chen, Andrea Pope, Armand Keating, John R. Wingard, Karen K. Ballen, Patrick J. Stiff, Miguel‐Angel Perales, Stephen J. Forman, Richard E. Champlin, Amelia Langston, Mattias Rudebeck, Mary M. Horowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteHealth Resources and Services AdministrationSwedish Orphan BiovitrumU.S. Public Health ServiceKiadis PharmaDaiichi-SankyoNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCareDxMedical College of WisconsinShireBristol-Myers SquibbCSL BehringNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCelgeneNovartisKaryopharm TherapeuticsJanssen PharmaceuticalsGilead SciencesOffice of Naval ResearchJazz PharmaceuticalsGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDialysisTransplantationMucositisRelative riskUnivariate analysisProspective cohort studySurgeryPopulationIncidence (geometry)GastroenterologyConfidence intervalMultivariate analysisChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of debilitating oral mucositis (OM) can be as high as 99% after myeloablative conditioning regimens preparing patients with hematologic malignancies for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Palifermin (KGF) is a recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor that reduces the incidence and duration of severe OM. The long-term safety of KGF has not been well established, however. In this long-term prospective matched-cohort study, patients who received KGF (cases) and underwent autologous or allogeneic HCT for hematologic malignancies between 2006 and 2013 were matched 1:1 to patients who did not receive KGF (controls). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Other outcomes were disease relapse, new malignancies, pancreatitis, renal failure requiring dialysis, pulmonary complications, cataract surgery, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The analysis population comprised 2191 matched pairs with a wide range of diseases and donor types that received diverse conditioning and GVHD preventive regimens, representing contemporary practice patterns. The median duration of follow-up was 8 years (range, 1 to 12.5 years). In multivariate analyses, the probabilities of OS (relative risk [RR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.12), relapse (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.18), new malignancies (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.18), and cataract surgery (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.50) were not statistically significantly different between cases and controls. In univariate analyses, no increased risks were observed for renal failure requiring dialysis, pancreatitis, acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, interstitial pneumonitis/acute respiratory distress syndrome/idiopathic pneumonia syndrome, or bronchiolitis obliterans/cryptogenic organizing pneumonia/bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia among cases compared with controls. This long-term prospective safety cohort study demonstrates that the KGF group had no increased risk of overall mortality, relapse, new malignancies, or any other key outcome. The broad inclusion criteria allow the results to be generalized to contemporary practice for patients with a wide range of diseases and receiving a wide range of HCT conditioning regimens and graft sources from diverse donor types.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation and Cellular TherapySame topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207