MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382932713 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2023.06.020

Impact of Donor Age on Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Outcomes in Older Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

2023· article· en· W4382932713 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesOffice of Naval ResearchLegend BiotechPharmacyclicsTakeda OncologyHealth Resources and Services AdministrationMorphoSysAstellas PharmaAdaptive BiotechnologiesPfizerIncyteKiadis Pharmabluebird bioTG TherapeuticsJazz PharmaceuticalsSwedish Orphan BiovitrumOmeros CorporationVertex PharmaceuticalsStemCyteBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaCSL BehringBeiGeneHistoGeneticsAtara BiotherapeuticsCareDxActinium PharmaceuticalsNational Cancer InstituteGilead SciencesSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationAmgenMallinckrodt PharmaceuticalsAstellas Pharma US
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioCumulative incidenceTransplantationMyeloid leukemiaInternal medicineCohortHematopoietic stem cell transplantationHematopoietic cellSurgeryIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyConfidence intervalGraft-versus-host diseaseHaematopoiesisStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) provides cure for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, disease relapse remains a major concern. Based on recent data suggesting that younger donor age confers the greatest benefit for alloHCT with matched unrelated donors (MUDs), we attempted to answer a practical question: which donor type provides the best outcomes when an older patient with AML has a matched sibling donor (MSD, also older) versus the best MUD? This retrospective cohort registry study accessed data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) in patients with AML age ≥ 50 years undergoing alloHCT from older MSDs (age ≥ 50 years) or younger MUDs (age ≤ 35 years) between 2011 and 2018. The study included common allograft types, conditioning regimens, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. The primary outcome was relapse risk. Secondary outcomes included nonrelapse mortality (NRM), GVHD, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival. Among 4684 eligible patients, 1736 underwent alloHCT with an older MSD (median donor age, 60 years), and 2948 underwent alloHCT from a younger MUD (median donor age, 25 years). In multivariable analysis, compared to older MSDs, the use of younger MUDs conferred a decreased relapse risk (hazard ratio [HR], .86; P = .005) and a significantly lower adjusted 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (35% versus 41%; P = .003), but was associated with an increased risk for chronic GVHD (HR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 1.29; P = .0002) and greater NRM only in the earlier period of 2011 to 2015 (HR, 1.24; P = .016). The corresponding NRM rates were significantly lower in the more recent period of 2016 to 2018 (HR, .78; P = .017). The adjusted 5-year DFS probability was 44% (95% CI, 42% to 46%) with an alloHCT from younger MUDs compared to 41% (95% CI, 38% to 43%) with older MSDs (P = .04). In summary, for older patients with AML undergoing alloHCT, the use of younger MUDs is associated with decreased relapse risk and improved DFS compared with the use of older MSDs.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.269 · 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