Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26287376›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Race, Ethnicity and Ancestry in Unrelated Transplant Matching for the National Marrow Donor Program: A Comparison of Multiple Forms of Self-Identification with Genetics.

Jill A Hollenbach, Aliya Saperstein, Mark Albrecht, Cynthia Vierra-Green, Peter Parham, Paul J Norman, Martin Maiers

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Race and Survival in Unrelated Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jill A HollenbachDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Aliya SapersteinDepartment of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Mark AlbrechtBioinformatics Research, National Marrow Donor Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Cynthia Vierra-GreenCenter for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Peter ParhamDepartment of Structural Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America; Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Paul J NormanDepartment of Structural Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America; Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Martin MaiersBioinformatics Research, National Marrow Donor Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted a nationwide study comparing self-identification to genetic ancestry classifications in a large cohort (n = 1752) from the National Marrow Donor Program. We sought to determine how various measures of self-identification intersect with genetic ancestry, with the aim of improving matching algorithms for unrelated bone marrow transplant. Multiple dimensions of self-identification, including race/ethnicity and geographic ancestry were compared to classifications based on ancestry informative markers (AIMs), and the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes, which are required for transplant matching. Nearly 20% of responses were inconsistent between reporting race/ethnicity versus geographic ancestry. Despite strong concordance between AIMs and HLA, no measure of self-identification shows complete correspondence with genetic ancestry. In certain cases geographic ancestry reporting matches genetic ancestry not reflected in race/ethnicity identification, but in other cases geographic ancestries show little correspondence to genetic measures, with important differences by gender. However, when respondents assign ancestry to grandparents, we observe sub-groups of individuals with well- defined genetic ancestries, including important differences in HLA frequencies, with implications for transplant matching. While we advocate for tailored questioning to improve accuracy of ancestry ascertainment, collection of donor grandparents' information will improve the chances of finding matches for many patients, particularly for mixed-ancestry individuals.

Indexed as

AdultBone MarrowBone Marrow TransplantationEthnicityFemaleGenetics, MedicalHLA AntigensHumansMaleRacial GroupsTissue DonorsTransplant RecipientsHLA Antigens

Identifiers

PMID26287376
PMCPMC4545604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.