Choosing Between Older Matched Sibling Donor and Younger Matched Unrelated Donor in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice between an older matched sibling donor (MSD) and a younger matched unrelated donor (MUD) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains a subject of ongoing debate. In this single-center retrospective study of 377 patients who received peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplants for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), we compared outcomes of 85 patients who received grafts from MSDs age >60 years and 292 patients who received grafts from MUDs age <30 years. Compared to recipients of MSD transplants, recipients of MUD transplants were younger and more likely to receive dual T cell depletion (TCD), a higher CD34+ cell dose, and a fresh graft. Recipients of MSD transplants were maintained on immunosuppressive therapy longer than those who received MUD grafts. We found no differences in overall survival, relapse-free survival, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free and relapse-free survival, nonrelapse mortality, relapse, engraftment, graft failure, and acute GVHD between recipients of MSD grafts and recipients of MUD grafts. We report a higher 30-day incidence, but not 1-year incidence, of bloodstream infections among recipients of MUD transplants compared to subjects who received their grafts from a MSD. The incidence of moderate-severe chronic GVHD was higher in MSD graft recipients compared with MUD graft recipients in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis. Although this difference could reflect the greater use of dual TCD, known to be associated with very low rates of chronic GVHD in MUD transplant recipients, the incidence of moderate-severe chronic GVHD was no different between MSD and MUD transplant recipients following propensity score matching, suggesting that other variables could be responsible. Taken together, our data suggest that in patients with AML or MDS who receive PBSC transplants, such factors as convenience, ease of access, and costs should be considered when selecting an older MSD over a younger MUD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".