Donor Experiences of Second Marrow or Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Collection Mirror the First, but CD34+ Yields Are Less
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the experiences of individuals donating peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) or marrow for a second time. To study this, unrelated donors making a second donation through the National Marrow Donor Program between 2004 and 2013 were evaluated. Experiences of second-time donors giving marrow (n = 118: first donation was PBSC in 76 and marrow in 42) were compared with those making only 1 marrow donation (n = 5829). Experiences of second-time donors giving PBSCs (n = 602) (first donation was PBSCs in 362; marrow in 240) were compared to first-time PBSC donors (n = 16,095). For donors giving a second PBSC or marrow donation there were no significant differences in maximum skeletal pain, maximum symptoms measured by an established modified toxicity criteria, and recovery time compared with those who donated only once. Notably, the yield of marrow nucleated cells and PBSC CD34 + cells with second donations was less. As previously noted with single first-time donations, female (PBSCs and marrow) and obese donors (PBSCs) had higher skeletal pain and/or toxicity with a second donation. PBSC donors who experienced high levels of pain or toxicity with the first donation also experienced high levels of these symptoms with their second donation and slower recovery times. In conclusion, for most donors second donation experiences were similar to first donation experiences, but CD34 + yields were less. Knowledge of the donor's first experience and stem cell yields may help centers decide whether second donations are appropriate and institute measures to improve donor experiences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".