Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been 21 years since the first successful use of umbilical cord blood as a source of donor cells for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Over those years, cord blood transplantation (CBT) has shown marked success as an effective modality in the treatment of children and adults with hematologic malignancies, marrow failure, immunodeficiency, hemoglobinopathy, and inherited metabolic diseases. Furthermore, transplantation without full human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching is possible and, despite a lower incidence of graft-versus-host disease, graft-versus-leukemia effect is preserved. More than 20,000 cbts have been performed worldwide. Ontario is the most populated province in Canada, and its cbt numbers have increased dramatically in recent years, but most of the umbilical cord blood units are purchased from unrelated international registries. There is no public cord bank in Ontario, but there is a private cord banking option, and notably, Ontario has the largest number of live births in Canada [approximately 40% of all Canadian live births per year occur in Ontario (Statistics Canada, 2007)]. In this brief review, the pros and cons of private and public cord banking and the feasibility of starting an Ontario public cord bank are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".