Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 487

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy: relative risks and benefits of double umbilical cord blood

Open access
Brunstein, Claudio G., Gutman, Jonathan A., Weisdorf, Daniel J., Woolfrey, Ann E., DeFor, Todd E., Gooley, Theodore A., Verneris, Michael R., Appelbaum, Frederick R., Wagner, John E., Delaney, Colleen·2010·Blood

Abstract

Effectiveness of double umbilical cord blood (dUCB) grafts relative to conventional marrow and mobilized peripheral blood from related and unrelated donors has yet to be established. We studied 536 patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Minnesota with malignant disease who underwent transplantation with an human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched related donor (MRD, n = 204), HLA allele–matched unrelated donor (MUD, n = 152) or 1-antigen–mismatched unrelated adult donor (MMUD, n = 52) or 4-6/6 HLA matched dUCB (n = 128) graft after myeloablative conditioning. Leukemia-free survival at 5 years was similar for each donor type (dUCB 51% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41%-59%]; MRD 33% [95% CI, 26%-41%]; MUD 48% [40%-56%]; MMUD 38% [95% CI, 25%-51%]). The risk of relapse was lower in recipients of dUCB (15%, 95% CI, 9%-22%) compared with MRD (43%, 95% CI, 35%-52%), MUD (37%, 95% CI, 29%-46%) and MMUD (35%, 95% CI, 21%-48%), yet nonrelapse mortality was higher for dUCB (34%, 95% CI, 25%-42%), MRD (24% (95% CI, 17%-39%), and MUD (14%, 95% CI, 9%-20%). We conclude that leukemia-free survival after dUCB transplantation is comparable with that observed after MRD and MUD transplantation. For patients without an available HLA matched donor, the use of 2 partially HLA-matched UCB units is a suitable alternative.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1182/blood-2010-05-285304

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 487

Metadata

Authors
Brunstein, C. G., Gutman, J. A., Weisdorf, D. J., Woolfrey, A. E., DeFor, T. E., Gooley, T. A., Verneris, M. R., Appelbaum, F. R., Wagner, J. E., & Delaney, C.
Venue
Blood
Published
2010-11-25
Volume
116
Issue
22
Pages
4693-4699
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2028795322
Cited by
487
References
2
FWCI
26.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy: relative risks and benefits of double umbilical cord blood. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2010-05-285304
The paper
Brunstein, C. G., Gutman, J. A., Weisdorf, D. J., Woolfrey, A. E., DeFor, T. E., Gooley, T. A., Verneris, M. R., Appelbaum, F. R., Wagner, J. E., & Delaney, C. (2010). Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy: relative risks and benefits of double umbilical cord blood. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-05-285304

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.