Knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women with regard to collection, testing and banking of cord blood stem cells.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord blood is used as a source of hematopoietic stem cells for bone marrow transplantation in the treatment of malignant and nonmalignant disease. We sought to examine pregnant women's knowledge and attitudes regarding cord blood banking, as their support is crucial to the success of cord blood transplant programs. METHODS: A questionnaire examining sociodemographic factors and women's attitudes to cord blood banking was developed on the basis of findings from 2 focus groups and a pilot study. The questionnaire was distributed to 650 women attending antenatal clinics at a regional women's hospital between April and July 2001. RESULTS: A total of 443 women (68%) responded. More than half of the women (307/438 or 70% [95% confidence interval, CI, 66% to 74%]) reported poor or very poor knowledge about cord blood banking. Many of the respondents (299/441 or 68% [95% CI 63% to 72%]) thought that physicians should talk to pregnant women about the collection of cord blood, and they wanted to receive information about this topic from health care professionals (290/441 or 66% [95% CI 61% to 70%]) or prenatal classes (308/441 or 70% [95% CI 65% to 74%]). Most of the women (379/442 or 86% [95% CI 82% to 89%]) would elect to store cord blood in a public bank, many citing altruism as the reason for this choice. A much smaller proportion (63/442 or 14% [95% CI 11% to 18%]) would elect private banking, indicating that this would be a good investment or that they would feel guilty if the blood had not been stored. Additional acceptable uses for cord blood included research (mentioned by 294/436 women or 67% [95% CI 63% to 72%]) and gene therapy (mentioned by 169/437 women or 39% [95% CI 34% to 43%]). INTERPRETATION: Most of the women in this study supported the donation of cord blood to public cord blood banks for potential transplantation and research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".