ArticleCommunications medicine2024
Machine learning evaluation of intensified conditioning on haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients.
Article in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe advantage of intensified myeloablative conditioning (MAC) over standard MAC has not been determined in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients.
methodsTo evaluate heterogeneous effects of intensified MAC among individuals, we analyzed the registry database of adult ALL patients between 2000 and 2021. After propensity score matching, we applied a machine-learning Bayesian causal forest algorithm to develop a prediction model of individualized treatment effect (ITE) of intensified MAC on reduction in overall mortality at 1 year after HSCT.
resultsAmong 2440 propensity score-matched patients, our model shows heterogeneity in the association between intensified MAC and 1-year overall mortality. Individuals in the high-benefit group (n = 1220), defined as those with ITEs greater than the median, are more likely to be younger, male, and to have higher refined Disease Risk Index (rDRI), T-cell phenotype, and grafts from related donors than those in the low-benefit group (n = 1220). The high-benefit approach (applying intensified MAC to individuals in the high-benefit group) shows the largest reduction in overall mortality at 1 year (risk difference [95% confidence interval], +5.94 percentage points [0.88 to 10.51], p = 0.011). In contrast, the high-risk approach (targeting patients with high or very high rDRI) does not achieve statistical significance (risk difference [95% confidence interval], +3.85 percentage points [-1.11 to 7.90], p = 0.063).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the high-benefit approach, targeting patients expected to benefit from intensified MAC, has the capacity to maximize HSCT effectiveness using intensified MAC.
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.