Reduced Intensity transplantation vs chemotherapy in CR1. A prospective, pseudorandomized study in 50–70 year old AML patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this prospective, international multicenter, pseudorandomized study comparing RICT HCT to standard-of-care chemotherapy in intermediate- or high-risk AML patients 50-70 years using the donor versus no-donor concept. Part 1 included only patients with potential family donors (RD) at the date of HLA-typing of the first potential sibling or CR-date, if later. Part 2 allowed the inclusion of patients without a possible sibling donor using the start of an unrelated donor (URD) search as inclusion date. 360 patients were registered and 309 analyzed. The median follow-up was 47 months (1-168). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between the RD (n = 124) and the Control (n = 77) groups (p = 0.50, 3-year OS RD: 0.41(95% CI; 0.32-0.50); Controls: 0.49 (95% CI; 0.37-0.59)). The main cause of death was relapse (67% RD; 88% Controls). In Part 2, the 3-year OS was 0.60 (95% CI 0.50-0.70) for URD-HCT (n = 86) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.13-0.62) for Controls (n = 20), respectively (p = 0.10). When analyzing transplanted patients (Part 2), the OS at 3-years was higher for URD-HCT than RD-HCT (0.67 (0.55-0.76) vs. 0.42 (0.26-0.57; p = 0.005). This study doesn't support elderly HLA-identical siblings as donors for older AML patients undergoing a RICT allogeneic HCT in first CR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".