Impact of cord blood banking technologies on clinical outcome: a Eurocord/Cord Blood Committee (CTIWP), European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and NetCord retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Techniques for banking cord blood units (CBUs) as source for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have been developed over the past 20 years, aimed to improve laboratory efficiency without altering the biologic properties of the graft. A large-scale, registry-based assessment of the impact of the banking variables on the clinical outcome is currently missing. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 677 single cord blood transplants (CBTs) carried out for acute leukemia in complete remission in centers affiliated with the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation were selected. An extensive set of data concerning CBU banking were collected and correlations with clinical outcome were assessed. Clinical endpoints were transplant-related mortality, engraftment, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). RESULTS: The median time between collection and CBT was 4.1 years (range, 0.2-16.3 years). Volume reduction (VR) of CBUs before freezing was performed in 59.2% of available reports; in half of these the frozen volume was less than 30 mL. Cumulative incidences of neutrophil engraftment on Day 60, 100-day acute GVHD (II-IV), and 4-year chronic GVHD were 87, 29, and 21 ± 2%. The cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at 100 days and 4-year NRM were, respectively, 16 ± 2 and 30 ± 2%. Neither the variables related to banking procedures nor the interval between collection and CBT influenced the clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate a satisfactory validation of the techniques associated with CBU VR across the banks. Cell viability assessment varied among the banks, suggesting that efforts to improve the standardization of CBU quality controls are needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".