Conditional survival and standardized mortality ratios of patients with severe aplastic anemia surviving at least one year after hematopoietic cell transplantation or immunosuppressive therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunosuppressive treatment (IST) and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) are standard therapies for severe aplastic anemia (SAA). We report on conditional survival and standardized mortality ratios (SMR), which compare the mortality risk with the general population adjusted for age, gender, and race/ethnicity, in patients with SAA alive for at least 12 months after treatment with IST or HCT between 2000 and 2018. Given changes to treatment regimens and differences in length of follow-up, two treatment periods were defined a priori: 2000-2010 and 2011-2018. The SMR of patients treated during the period 2000-2010 and who survived one year were 3.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.62-4.58), 4.12 (95% CI: 3.20-5.21), and 8.62 (95% CI: 6.88-10.67) after IST, matched related donor HCT, and alternative donor HCT, respectively. For the period 2011-2018, the corresponding SMR were 2.89 (95% CI: 1.54-4.94), 3.12 (95% CI: 1.90-4.82), and 4.75 (95% CI: 3.45-6.38), respectively. For IST patients, their mortality risk decreased over time, and became comparable to the general population by five years. For patients who underwent HCT during 2000-2010 and 2011-2018, their mortality risk became comparable to the general population after ten years and after five years, respectively. Thus, 1-year survivors after IST or HCT can expect their longevity beyond five years to be comparable to that of the general US population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".