MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169390112 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1011625

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a primer for the primary care physician

2004· review· en· W2169390112 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Chantal S. Leger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMedicineStem cellTransplantationIntensive care medicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationDiseaseConditioning regimenHematopoietic stem cellHaematopoiesisImmunologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been used for many years to treat various malignant and nonmalignant hematologic conditions. However, the high-dose conditioning regimen can lead to major organ dysfunction, life-threatening infection and bleeding. In the allogeneic setting, graft-versus-host disease may also develop, making post-transplant management complex. Once a transplant recipient is discharged from hospital and returns to his or her local community, the primary care physician can play an important role in care. Recipients of stem cell transplants may be severely immunocompromised for many months after transplantation, especially if they are still taking immunosuppressive drugs. Furthermore, endocrine and metabolic deficiencies can develop, and transplant survivors are at risk of a second malignant disease. This review is intended as a basic overview of allogeneic and autologous stem cell transplantation with a special focus on long-term follow-up issues relevant to primary care providers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207