MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172503280 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.11.016

Improved Prediction of CD34+ Cell Yield before Peripheral Blood Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Collection Using a Modified Target Value–Tailored Approach

2015· article· en· W2172503280 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dawn Sheppard, Jason Tay, Douglas S. Palmer, Anargyros Xenocostas, Christina Doulaverakis, Lothar Huebsch, Sheryl McDiarmid, Alan Tinmouth, Ranjeeta Mallick, Lisa Martin, Paul Birch, Linda Hamelin, David Allan, Christopher Bredeson

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreCanadian Blood ServicesOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApheresisCD34MedicineProgenitor cellHaematopoiesisPeripheral bloodHematopoietic stem cell transplantationStem cellTransplantationImmunologyInternal medicineBiologyPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most commonly used stem cell source for both autologous and allogeneic transplantation is mobilized peripheral blood hematopoietic progenitor cells collected by apheresis. In the 1990s, an Italian group used the correlation between the preapheresis peripheral blood CD34+ cell count and the final number of CD34+ cells collected to devise a formula for "target value-tailored" (TVT) apheresis. Using local patient data, the Canadian Blood Services Stem Cell Laboratory created a similar model to determine the blood volume to process during apheresis collection. The objectives of this study were to determine the correlation between the number of CD34+ cells predicted by the TVT formula and the actual number of CD34+ cells collected and to determine whether the TVT formula remains predictive when applied to an external data set. All apheresis collections performed at the Ottawa Hospital between January 1, 2003 and October 2, 2013 were reviewed. The primary outcome was the correlation between the number of CD34+ cells predicted by the TVT formula and the actual number of CD34+ cells collected on day 1 of apheresis. For the external data set, all autologous collections performed at the London Health Sciences Centre between December 1, 2008 and December 1, 2013 were reviewed. The external data set was divided into test and validation sets to determine whether a model could be created to predict the final number of CD34+ cells collected on day 1 based on the preapheresis CD34+ count. A total of 1252 collections were included in the analysis. The Ottawa data set included 1012 collections, 836 of which were autologous and 176 of which were from donors. Of the autologous collections in Ottawa, 764 (92.5%) were first collections. In 759 (91%) collections, chemotherapy plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was used as the mobilization regimen. In 747 collections (89%), only 1 collection day was required to achieve the desired number of CD34+ cells. The TVT estimate was highly predictive of the number of CD34+ cells × 10(6)/kg actually collected on apheresis day 1 (r = .90, P < .0001). The London data set included 240 autologous collections. All mobilizations were with G-CSF alone. For the test set, the precollection CD34+ count was highly predictive of the number of CD34+ cells × 10(6)/kg collected on day 1 of apheresis. Applying this model to the validation set, the correlation between the predicted and final and day 1 CD34+ cells × 10(6)/kg count was .9186 (P < .0001). Using a modified TVT approach, the preapheresis CD34+ count can be used to accurately predict the number of CD34+ cells × 10(6)/kg collected on day 1. This approach can be applied at other centers and for different diseases and mobilization regimens. This method can be used to individualize the blood volume processed and, thus, optimize resource utilization.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207