ReviewFrontiers in immunology2026
Addressing the translation gap in SCT donor selection.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) offers genuine promise for improving donor selection in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT), yet the gap between model development and clinical adoption remains wide. Drawing on experience from a German federally-funded translational incubation project at the Berlin Institute of Health and Charité Hospital (2021-2023), we offer a practitioner's perspective on what it actually takes to move ML-driven SCT tools from research into clinical practice. We make two distinct contributions. First, we offer concrete prescriptions on data strategy and translational methodology: registry data was not designed for ML and must be rethought from the ground up; multi-center data infrastructure is a prerequisite, not an aspiration; approaches which increase the breadth of clinical parameters are theoretically sound and should be embraced; and the field must move beyond retrospective validation toward prospective studies designed around standard-of-care endpoints. Second, we provide deliberate sensitization to three forces that will surprise clinically-focused teams: the product and regulatory burden of sustaining a clinical tool; the true resource requirements for the full translational path; and the market dynamics and misaligned institutional incentives that impede adoption. Despite these barriers, the technical feasibility of ML-supported SCT donor selection is real, and the community's demonstrated willingness to share data provides the foundation on which to build. What is needed now is not more retrospective modelling, but projects that enter the space with a clear-eyed understanding of the full landscape.
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.