MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201321334 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2021.09.009

Haploidentical Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in Sickle Cell Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3201321334 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademisch Medisch Centrum
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisTransplantationInternal medicineOdds ratioHematopoietic stem cell transplantationSubgroup analysisOncologySiblingCyclophosphamideChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is the sole established curative treatment option for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). However, a lack of HLA-identical sibling donors is a limiting factor. Haploidentical related donors are a promising donor pool, potentially extending SCT as a curative treatment option to a larger group of patients with no other meaningful treatment options for their severe SCD. In the present study, we aimed to systematically review the results of haploidentical SCT in patients with SCD. A comprehensive search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase up to May 2021. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers independently, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. Fourteen studies met our inclusion criteria. To provide an overview of the results of haploidentical SCT, we grouped the studies into myeloablative conditioning versus nonmyeloablative conditioning as well as into in vitro versus in vivo (ie, with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide) T cell depletion with a subgroup meta-analysis of proportions. All the included studies were observational cohort studies. Only 3 of these studies reported data for both matched sibling donor (MSD) SCT and haploidentical SCT. Based on a comparative meta-analysis of the 3 studies that included both haploidentical and MSD transplantation, graft failure was significantly higher in the haploidentical group than in the MSD group (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 27.6). Overall survival was not significantly different between the groups. A subgroup meta-analysis of the results of haploidentical SCT showed relatively low overall pooled proportions of graft failure (7%; 95% CI, 2% to 20%), acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) (4%; 95% CI, 2% to 12%), and chronic GVHD (11%; 95% CI, 7% to 16%). Overall survival (OS) was high in all the included studies (91%; 95% CI, 85% to 94%). Adjustments to the conditioning regimens, robust pretransplantation and post-transplantation T cell depletion, and improved supportive care have resulted in reduced graft failure and improved OS following haploidentical SCT in patients with SCD. We conclude that the safety of haploidentical SCT in SCD patients has improved significantly, and that this should be considered as a curative option in patients with severe SCD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.255 · 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