ArticleLeukemia2026
Modeling donor age and type trade-offs for personalized selection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide prophylaxis.
Article in Leukemia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Pitfalls of Categorizing Donor Age: Arbitrary Cutoffs Fail to Predict Survival in Haploidentical HCT.American journal of hematology · 2026Article
- Mismatched Unrelated vs Matched Related Donor Transplant With Posttransplant Cyclophosphamide Among Patients With Blood Cancers.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Uncoupling toxicity from efficacy in donor selection for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a retrospective cohort study using double machine learning.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevailing fixed-hierarchy approach to donor selection for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) fails to capture critical interactions between donor age and type. We addressed this by analyzing 1713 adult recipients of matched related (MRD), matched unrelated (MUD), or haploidentical donors, receiving post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, using both regularized-Cox and XGBoost machine learning models. Our analysis revealed that the overall, independent association of donor age with survival was modest; however, its importance became pivotal within specific, context-dependent trade-offs. For example, while age-matched MRD and MUD were equivalent, a younger MUD was superior to an older MRD for elderly recipients. The survival advantage of MUD over haploidentical donors was consistent and magnified with increasing recipient age. We identified a non-linear relationship between baseline risk and the benefit of a matched versus a haploidentical donor; with the gain being maximal for intermediate-risk patients but attenuated in the highest-risk stratum. Our framework quantifies the gap that persists even between HLA-favorable haploidentical donors and matched donors. These findings provide a quantitative framework -the principles of which we have made explorable via an interactive web application -for a personalized, risk-adapted approach to donor selection. The clinical utility of this model must be confirmed in future validation studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41526616What 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.