MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306894665 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2022.10.013

Rituximab Toxicity after Preemptive or Therapeutic Administration for Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder

2022· article· en· W4306894665 on OpenAlexafffund
Megan Kinzel, Amit Kalra, Rutvij A. Khanolkar, Tyler Williamson, Na Li, Faisal M. Khan, Robert Puckrin, Peter Duggan, Mona Shafey, Jan Storek

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersO'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of CalgaryAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsRituximabMedicineNeutropeniaHypogammaglobulinemiaPost-transplant lymphoproliferative disorderInternal medicineGastroenterologyTransplantationLymphoproliferative disordersImmunosuppressionImmunologyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationIncidence (geometry)ToxicityLymphomaAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rituximab is commonly used as prevention, preemption, or therapeutically for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Although it is generally assumed that rituximab toxicity (ie, infections resulting from hypogammaglobulinemia and neutropenia) is negligible in relation to mortality due to PTLD, limited evidence supports the validity of this assumption. We sought to determine the impact of rituximab on immunoglobulin levels, neutrophil count, infection density, and mortality outcomes. This study retrospectively analyzed 349 HCT recipients, 289 of whom did not receive rituximab and 60 of whom received rituximab preemptively or therapeutically at a median of 55 days post-transplantation. IgM, IgG, and IgA levels at 6 months and 12 months post-transplantation were lower in patients who received rituximab compared with those who did not (significant at P < .05 for IgM and IgA at 6 months and for IgM and IgG at 12 months). Rituximab recipients also had a higher incidence of severe neutropenia (<.5/nl) between 3 and 24 months (subhazard ratio [SHR], 2.3; P = .020). Regarding non-Epstein-Barr viral infections/PTLD, the rituximab group had a higher infection density between 3 and 24 months compared with the no-rituximab group (3.8 versus 1.6 infections per 365 days at risk; incidence rate ratio, 2.2; P < .001). The rituximab group also had a higher incidence of fatal infections (SHR, 3.1; P = .026), higher nonrelapse mortality (SHR, 2.4; P = .006), and higher overall mortality (hazard ratio, 1.7; P = .033). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of clinically significant graft-versus-host disease, graft failure, or relapse. Based on this study, rituximab given for PTLD is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Whether the benefit of preemptive rituximab outweighs the risk remains to be determined. © 2022 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy→Same topicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→French-language works237,207→