Graft Source Choice.

Sanghee Hong, Mitchell E Horwitz

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

A prospective, open, single-arm clinical trial of fludarabine- cyclophosphamide-porcine anti-lymphocyte globulin conditioning combined with matched sibling donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the treatment of severe aplastic anemia.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026
Trial

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

2 authors.

Sanghee HongDivision of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. sanghee.hong@duke.edu.

Mitchell E HorwitzDivision of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone marrow grafts offer a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) but require a surgical procedure and are associated with slower engraftment rates. Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) enable faster engraftment and easier collection but have historically been associated with a higher risk of GVHD. Umbilical cord blood (UCB) grafts are readily available and carry no donor risk, with a higher tolerance for human leukocyte antigen mismatches and a lower risk of GVHD, but they are constrained by limited cell doses and slower engraftment. Recent advancements in transplant techniques-such as post-transplant cyclophosphamide to reduce GVHD rates in PBSC grafts, and cord blood expansion methods to increase the effectiveness of UCB grafts-have significantly improved transplant outcomes.Each graft source offers unique benefits and drawbacks that impact the selection process, factoring in patient age, disease type, donor availability, engraftment speed, immune recovery, GVHD risk, and logistical and financial considerations. These complexities highlight the need for a comprehensive and tailored approach to graft source selection, alongside adherence to guidelines and best practices, to optimize outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Indexed as

Cord Blood Stem Cell TransplantationGraft vs Host DiseaseHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationPeripheral Blood Stem Cell TransplantationFetal BloodGraft SurvivalHumansTissue DonorsTransplantation, HomologousBone marrowGraft sourcePeripheral bloodUmbilical cord

Identifiers

PMID40488824

DOI10.1007/978-3-031-84988-6_4

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.