An evaluation of the donor experience in the canadian multicenter randomized trial of bone marrow versus peripheral blood allografting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the donation of bone marrow (BM) versus recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) in HLA-matched sibling donors. Donors randomized to donate BM or PBPC completed questionnaires (Profile of Mood States [POMS] and Short-Form 36 Health Survey) assessing peridonation health-related quality of life (QoL), donation experience, and acceptability of donation before and 1 week and 4 weeks after donation. Between January 1996 and March 1999, 184 patients and their donors were randomized. Predonation and postdonation data were available on 52 (56%) and 35 (38%) of the BM and PBPC donors, respectively. The median donor age was 45 years, and 44% were female. The median time (range) to return to full activity for the BM and PBPC donors was 4 days (1-21 days) and 2 days (0-21 days), respectively (P = .01). One week after donation, BM donors reported more fatigue and less energy than the PBPC donors. BM donors' POMS total mood disturbance scores were worse 1 week after versus before donation, whereas the PBPC donors' scores did not change. POMS subscores indicated more fatigue and less energy in the BM versus PBPC donors. Anxiety improved in both groups, but more in PBPC donors. Four weeks after donation, the Short-Form 36 Health Survey indicated persistent moderate negative effects on QoL with BM donation versus small effects with PBPC donation. BM donation was associated with more physical morbidity and negative effects on QoL up to 1 month after donation than was PBPC donation. Despite this, most donors would donate again. Further work is needed to decrease donor anxiety and symptoms. If both BM and PBPC donation are feasible, then the graft source should be dictated by the predicted patient outcome as determined from the results of randomized trials.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".