Adapting the HCT-CI Definitions for Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Hematologic Malignancies Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is a curative procedure for hematologic malignancies but is associated with a significant risk of non-relapse mortality (NRM). The Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) is a prognostic tool that discriminates this risk in all age groups. A recent survey of transplant physicians demonstrated that 79% of pediatric providers used the HCT-CI infrequently, and most reported concerns about its applicability in the younger population. We conducted a retrospective study using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database to examine the impact of expanded HCT-CI definitions on NRM in pediatric and young adult patients with hematologic malignancies. We included 5790 patients <40 years old receiving allogeneic transplants between 2008 and 2017 to examine broader definitions of comorbidities in the HCT-CI, including history of mechanical ventilation and fungal infection, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and body mass index (BMI) percentiles. Multivariable Fine-Gray models were created to determine the effect of each HCT-CI defining comorbidity and its modification on NRM and were used to develop 2 novel risk scores. We next developed the expanded HCT-CI for children and young adults (youth with malignancies; expanded ymHCT-CI), where 23% patients had an increased comorbidity score, compared to the HCT-CI. Comorbidities with hazard ratio < 1.2 were then removed to create the simplified HCT-CI for children and young adults (youth with malignancies; simplified ymHCT-CI), which demonstrated higher scores corresponded to a greater risk of NRM (P < .001). These novel comorbidity indexes with broader definitions are more relevant to pediatric and young adult patients, and prospective studies are needed to validate these in the younger patient population. It remains to be seen whether the development of these pediatric-specific and practical risk indexes increases their use by the pediatric transplant community.
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 | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".