Improved outcomes of UM171–expanded cord blood transplantation compared with other graft sources: real-world evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cord blood (CB) transplantation is hampered by low cell dose and high nonrelapse mortality (NRM). A phase 1-2 trial of UM171-expanded CB transplants demonstrated safety and favorable preliminary efficacy. The aim of the current analysis was to retrospectively compare results of the phase 1-2 trial with those after unmanipulated CB and matched-unrelated donor (MUD) transplants. Data from recipients of CB and MUD transplants were obtained from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database. Patients were directly matched for the number of previous allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (alloHCT), disease and refined Disease Risk Index. Patients were further matched by propensity score for age, comorbidity index, and performance status. Primary end points included NRM, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) at 1 and 2 years after alloHCT. Overall, 137 patients from CIBMTR (67 CB, 70 MUD) and 22 with UM171-expanded CB were included. NRM at 1 and 2 years was lower, PFS and GRFS at 2 years and OS at 1 year were improved for UM171-expanded CBs compared with CB controls. Compared with MUD controls, UM171 recipients had lower 1- and 2-year NRM, higher 2-year PFS, and higher 1- and 2-year GRFS. Furthermore, UM171-expanded CB recipients experienced less grades 3-4 acute GVHD and chronic GVHD compared with MUD graft recipients. Compared with real-world evidence with CB and MUD alloHCT, this study suggests that UM171-expanded CB recipients may benefit from lower NRM and higher GRFS. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02668315.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".