Family-directed umbilical cord blood banking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Umbilical cord blood transplantation from HLA-identical siblings provides good results in children. These results support targeted efforts to bank family cord blood units that can be used for a sibling diagnosed with a disease which can be cured by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or for research that investigates the use of allogeneic or autologous cord blood cells. Over 500 patients transplanted with related cord blood units have been reported to the Eurocord registry with a 4-year overall survival of 91% for patients with non-malignant diseases and 56% for patients with malignant diseases. Main hematologic indications in children are leukemia, hemoglobinopathies or inherited hematologic, immunological or metabolic disorders. However, family-directed cord blood banking is not widely promoted; many cord blood units used in sibling transplantation have been obtained from private banks that do not meet the necessary criteria required to store these units. Marketing by private banks who predominantly store autologous cord blood units has created public confusion. There are very few current validated indications for autologous storage but some new indications might appear in the future. Little effort is devoted to provide unbiased information and to educate the public as to the distinction between the different types of banking, economic models and standards involved in such programs. In order to provide a better service for families in need, directed-family cord blood banking activities should be encouraged and closely monitored with common standards, and better information on current and future indications should be made available.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".