ArticleTransplantation and cellular therapy2023
An Optimized Search Prognosis Tool to Predict 8/8 HLA Allele-Matched Unrelated Donor Procurement.
Article in Transplantation and cellular therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing racial disparities in representation across blood, stem cell and organ and tissue donor pools.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- Search Summary Score: A Global Measure to Predict Matched Unrelated Stem Cell Donor Availability.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2026Article
- The American Society of Hematology Health Equity Compendium: examining health equity across the Blood journals.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Racial/ethnic disparities in availability of volunteer unrelated donors for allogeneic transplantation.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Gender disparities in allograft access due to HLA-sensitization in multiparous women.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Analysis of disparities in time to allogeneic transplantation in adults with acute myelogenous leukemia.Blood advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
For patients in need of allogeneic transplantation who lack an HLA-identical sibling, an 8/8 HLA allele-matched unrelated donor (URD) is a standard alternative. However, delays in URD procurement can adversely impact patient care. Recipient genotype and search assessment (MSKv1.0)-based tools can predict search prognosis for many, but both tools have lower performance in non-European ancestry patients. Using the MSKv1.0 tool, we analyzed searches from 1530 potential allograft recipients (including 863 who underwent transplantation) with the aim of creating an optimized MSKv2.0 search prognosis tool that can classify a URD search as either Good or Poor with a high level of accuracy while also limiting an ambiguous Fair search prognosis regardless of patient ancestry. By MSKv2.0, the 8/8 URD search prognosis distribution was 57% Good, 21% Fair, and 22% Poor in Europeans and 15% Good, 21% Fair, and 63% Poor in non-Europeans. Importantly, compared to MSKv1.0, the likelihood of Fair categorization was reduced to <25% with comparable Fair rates (P = .847) in both European and non-European groups. Moreover, all patients with an MSKv2.0 Good prognosis had an 8/8 URD identified, and almost all of those who underwent transplantation had an 8/8 URD (Europeans, 99%; non-Europeans, 98%; P = .504). The MSKv2.0 tool also was highly accurate at classifying Poor searches, with <10% identifying an 8/8 URD, and almost all patients who underwent transplantation (Europeans, 95%; non-Europeans, 96%) receiving an alternative donor. Using preliminary search results, MSKv2.0 accurately classifies patients by likelihood of 8/8 URD procurement, greatly facilitating triage to 8/8 URD (Good prognosis) or alternative donor (Poor prognosis) transplantations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.