Current thawing and infusion practice of cryopreserved cord blood: the impact on graft quality, recipient safety, and transplantation outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods of handling, thawing, and infusion of cord blood (CB) products vary substantially among thaw/transplant centers (TCs). This review 1) compares currently available CB product types and thaw methods recommended by CB banks (CBBs), 2) discusses causes of inconsistency in thaw method application at TCs, 3) advises elements to consider in thaw method approval or selection at the TC, 4) provides a procedural template for the traditional thaw methods, and 5) suggests acceptable time from product thaw to infusion and other considerations for safe infusion. It also compares postinfusion adverse reaction and engraftment data as functions of thaw methods. Remarks and suggestions made throughout this review are: 1) not intended to supersede manufacturer's instructions but meant to support the standardization of preparative procedures recommended by CBBs and 2) intended to help TCs to investigate relevant quality issues and handle challenges, especially when the TC is unable to follow recommendations due to foreseeable technical, quality, and/or clinical factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".