MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020171611 · doi:10.1002/pbc.20800

Use of G‐CSF in Matched Sibling Donor Pediatric Allogeneic Transplantation: A Consensus Statement from the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Transplant Discipline Committee and Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Consortium (PBMTC) Executive Committee

2006· review· en· W2020171611 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan A. Grupp, Haydar Frangoul, Donna A. Wall, Michael A. Pulsipher, John E. Levine, Kirk R. Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncologyInternal medicineTransplantationStem cellCogSiblingGastroenterologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary studies indicate that G-CSF-primed marrow harvesting may result in a graft with increased mononuclear cells collected, increased CD34(+) stem and progenitor cell dose and a potential for more rapid engraftment. Increased cell dose plus other potential positive effects of G-CSF priming have resulted in improved survival in non-randomized preliminary studies. These benefits may be available without the increased risk of chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) that is experienced with allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplant. A phase III Children's Oncology Group (COG)/Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Consortium (PBMTC) trial comparing G-CSF-primed marrow to standard marrow has been proposed. This document reviews background studies of G-CSF-primed marrow and addresses benefits and risks of G-CSF administration to normal pediatric donors. We conclude that the approach is promising and warrants further study. Risks of G-CSF to the donor are minimal and benefits to both donor and recipient may occur.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207