Family Cord Blood Banking: Experience and Views of Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: In recent years, there has been a proliferation of family cord blood banks (for-profit companies that facilitate the collection and storage of umbilical cord blood for personal or family use), which advertise widely to physicians and the public. Aims/Methods: To learn more about the experiences and views of pediatric HSCT physicians in the USA and Canada regarding family cord blood banking, we surveyed physicians identified through the IBMTR. We received completed surveys from 94/130 (72%) eligible respondents from 58 centers. Results: Forty-eight (51%) respondents were program or clinical directors. A total of 7 autologous cord blood transplants were performed at 6 centers, for severe aplastic anemia (SAA; n=3), neuroblastoma (n=1), retinoblastoma (n=1), Shwachman-Diamond syndrome after allogeneic graft failure (n=1), and diagnosis not stated (n=1). None of these grafts were supplemented with PBSCs or marrow. Primary graft failure occurred after one of these transplants. Thirty-six allogeneic family-banked cord blood transplants were performed at 16 centers for leukemias (n=19), hemoglobinopathies (n=6), Fanconi anemia (n=5) and other diseases (n=6). Cord blood was derived from siblings in all but one case. In 32/36 (89%) cases, the cord blood had been collected in light of a known disease in the index patient. Six of these allogeneic cord blood units were co-administered with marrow grafts. Primary graft failure occurred after 4/36 transplants. To determine the perceived utility of family-banked cord blood for the treatment of pediatric transplantable diseases, subjects were presented with a hypothetical 5 year-old child whose cord blood was banked at birth and who subsequently developed a potentially transplantable illness. To treat ALL in CR2 after on-therapy marrow relapse, none would choose the auto-cord over an HLA-matched sibling (MSD) graft, and only 6% would choose the auto-cord over a suitably matched and cellular URD marrow/cord blood graft. If no MSD or URD graft were available, 62% would use the auto-cord rather than pursue other therapy. To treat newly diagnosed SAA, 28% would choose the auto-cord over a MSD graft. To treat SAA refractory to immunosuppressive therapy, 55% would choose to transplant using the auto-cord instead of an URD graft. To treat high-risk neuroblastoma, 55% would choose to use the auto-cord for transplant, rather than autologous PBSCs/marrow. Finally, subjects were asked whether they would recommend family cord blood banking for a newborn with a healthy 3 year-old sibling. When both parents were of Northern European descent, no respondent recommended banking (25% neutral, 47% recommended against, and 28% strongly recommended against). When parents were of mixed ethnicity, only 11% recommended banking (with 32% neutral, 42% recommending against, and 15% strongly recommending against). Conclusions: There is little experience with transplantation of cord blood “prophylactically” stored in family banks, and situations in which pediatric HSCT physicians might choose to perform such a transplant are very rare. The vast majority of pediatric HSCT physicians do not recommend prophylactic storage of cord blood, even in mixed-ethnicity families.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".