Upfront allogeneic transplantation versus JAK inhibitor therapy for patients with myelofibrosis: a North American collaborative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF) and is recommended for patients with higher risk disease. However, there is a risk of early mortality, and optimal timing is unknown. JAK inhibitor (JAKi) therapy may offer durable improvement in symptoms, splenomegaly and quality of life. The aim of this multicentre, retrospective observational study was to compare outcomes of patients aged 70 years or below with MF in chronic phase who received upfront JAKi therapy vs. upfront HCT in dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS)-stratified categories. For the whole study cohort, median overall survival (OS) was longer for patients who received a JAKi vs. upfront HCT, 69 (95% CI 57-89) vs. 42 (95% CI 20-not reached, NR) months, respectively (p = 0.01). In patients with intermediate-2 and high-risk disease, median OS was 55 (95% CI 36-73) months with JAKi vs. 36 (95% CI 20-NR) months for HCT (p = 0.27). An upfront HCT strategy was associated with early mortality and difference in median OS was not observed in any risk group by 5 years of follow-up. Within the limitations of a retrospective observational study, we did not observe any benefit of a universal upfront HCT approach for higher-risk MF.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".