Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Trends and Outcomes in Canada: A Registry-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is an established therapy for hematologic malignancies and serious non-malignant blood disorders. Despite its curative potential, HCT is associated with substantial toxicity and health resource utilization. Effective delivery of HCT requires complex hospital-based care, which limits the number of HCT centres in Canada. In Canada, the quantity, indications, temporal trends, and outcomes of patients receiving HCT are not known. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of first transplants reported to the Cell Therapy Transplant Canada (CTTC) registry between 2000 and 2019. We determined overall survival (OS) and non-relapse mortality (NRM), categorizing the cohort into early (2000–2009) and later (2010–2019) eras to investigate temporal changes. Results: Of 18,046 transplants, 7571 were allogeneic and 10,475 were autologous. Comparing the two eras, allogeneic transplants increased in number by 22.3%, with greater use of matched unrelated donors in the later era. Autologous transplants increased by 10.9%. Temporal improvements in NRM were observed in children and adults. OS improved in pediatric patients and in adults receiving autologous HCT. In adults receiving allogeneic HCT, OS was stable despite the substantially older age of patients in the later era. Interpretation: HCT is an increasingly frequent procedure in Canada which has expanded to serve older adults. Noted improvements in NRM and OS reflect progress in patient and donor selection, preparation for transplant, and post-transplant supportive care. In allogeneic HCT, unrelated donors have become the most frequent donor source, highlighting the importance of the continued growth of volunteer donor registries. These results serve as a baseline measure for quality improvement and health services planning in Canada.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".