↓ Skip to main content

EASIX in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease: a retrospective cohort analysis

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet Haematology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
EASIX in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease: a retrospective cohort analysis
Published in
The Lancet Haematology, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/s2352-3026(17)30108-4
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Endothelial dysfunction links thrombotic microangiopathy to steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. We aimed to assess if the simple formula-lactate dehydrogenase (U/L) × creatinine (mg/dL)/thrombocytes (10(9) cells per L)-termed the Endothelial Activation and Stress Index (EASIX), might be valuable for the prediction of death in patients with acute GVHD after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. For this retrospective analysis, we analysed a training cohort (in Germany) and three validation cohorts (in Germany and the USA) of patients with acute GVHD who had received consecutive allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. The primary endpoint was prediction of overall survival when measured at acute GVHD onset (EASIX-GVHD). We validated the prognostic strength of EASIX-GVHD for overall survival and non-relapse mortality in the three independent cohorts by calculating the prediction error (integrated Brier score), and concordance index. In the total cohort of patients with acute GVHD (n=311), EASIX-GVHD predicted overall survival in univariable and multivariable models (univariate analysis, hazard ratio [HR] for a one-fold increase 1·16, 95% CI 1·12-1·20, p=0·0004). However, in the subpopulation of patients with myeloablative conditioning (n=72), EASIX-GVHD did not predict overall survival, which is probably attributable to thrombocytopenia at GVHD onset (73 × 10(9) cells per L [IQR 29·75-180·00] for myeloablative conditioning vs 160 × 10(9) cells per L [90·0-250·5] for reduced-intensity conditioning; p<0·0001). In patients who received reduced-intensity conditioning (n=239), EASIX-GVHD was a strong predictor of overall survival (HR for a two-fold change of 1·23, 95% CI 1·13-1·34; p<0·0001) and non-relapse mortality (cause-specific HR for a two-fold change of 1·24, 1·12-1·38; p<0·0001). Model validation for prediction of overall survival and non-relapse mortality by EASIX-GVHD was successful in two independent cohorts of adult patients with reduced-intensity conditioning (n=141, n=173) and in a cohort with mainly paediatric patients (n=89). In patients with reduced-intensity conditioning, EASIX-GVHD is a powerful predictor of survival after GVHD. EASIX-GVHD could be the future basis for development of risk-adapted GVHD treatment strategies. There was no external funding source for this study.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 54 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 57 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2026.
All research outputs
#6,683,167
of 34,492,055 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Haematology
#873
of 1,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,193
of 356,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Haematology
#14
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,492,055 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.