ALLOGENEIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcome attributes of three available technologies for stem cell transplantation--bone marrow transplantation (BM), peripheral blood cell transplantation (PB), and cord blood transplantation (CB). To compare the cost per recipient for the three technologies, incorporating all donor and antigen matching functions, as well as the transplantation procedures. METHODS: Review of relevant literature using the CancerLit and HealthSTAR databases (plus earlier searches of MEDLINE and Embase) to summarize outcome differences. Estimations of cost per transplant using models drawing on Canadian experience. RESULTS: The literature review indicated that PB may have a modest advantage over BM in terms of outcomes. The literature indicated that CB has longer engraftment times (although this may be due to inadequate controls). Our modeling exercise indicated that costs for PB and BM are similar. CB has a higher cost per recipient, due in large part to the higher testing costs for every donated unit. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature is inadequate to provide an outcomes comparison of CB, PB, and BM. Viewed from a system-wide perspective, CB is a higher cost technique. However, PB and CB are emerging as technologies, and so our results should be viewed alongside the notion that there may be a steep learning curve in these technologies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".