Challenges and Opportunities for International Cooperative Studies in Pediatric Hematopoeitic Cell Transplantation: Priorities of the Westhafen Intercontinental Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 20% of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantations (HCTs) are performed in children and adolescents at a large number of relatively small centers. Unlike adults, at least one-third of HCTs in children are performed for rare, nonmalignant indications. Clinical trials to improve HCT outcomes in children have been limited by small numbers and these pediatric-specific features. The need for a larger number of pediatric HCT centers to participate in trials has led to the involvement of international collaborative groups. Representatives of the Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Consortium, European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation's Pediatric Working Group, International Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (iBFm) Stem Cell Transplantation Committee, and Children's Oncology Group's Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Discipline Committee met on October 3, 2012, in Frankfurt, Germany to develop a consensus on the highest priorities in pediatric HCT. In addition, it explored the creation of an international consortium to develop studies focused on HCT in children and adolescents. This meeting led to the creation of an international HCT network, dubbed the Westhafen Intercontinental Group, to develop worldwide priorities and strategies to address pediatric HCT issues. This review outlines the priorities of need as identified by this consensus group.
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 | 0.298 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".