Cryopreservation of adult unrelated donor products in hematopoietic cell transplantation: the OneMatch experience and systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The frequency of cryopreserving blood stem or progenitor products from unrelated donors is not known and the underlying reasons are poorly documented. Greater insight is needed to develop policies on cryopreservation that balance donor safety with patient needs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cryopreservation requests between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2016, at the OneMatch Stem Cell and Marrow Network at Canadian Blood Services were reviewed and a systematic review of the literature was performed. RESULTS: Thirty products of 719 (4.2%) unrelated donor collections facilitated by OneMatch were cryopreserved. Patient-related reasons were most common and included the need to delay transplant for continued antimicrobial treatment (six patients), patient too deconditioned to proceed with scheduled transplant (five patients), and/or need for more treatment for relapsed disease (three patients). Donor-related issues leading to cryopreservation requests were less common (five cases), mainly due to lack of donor availability after attempting to reschedule. Cryopreservation of a product that was never infused occurred infrequently (two cases, 7%). In our systematic review of the literature, 993 cases were identified in 32 published reports. Both patient-related and donor-related reasons were cited but not specifically reported, precluding quantitative insight regarding the relative frequency of causes. The impact of cryopreservation on hematopoietic engraftment appears negligible when compared to controls in a subset of studies; however, reporting of outcomes was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Future studies with standard outcome measures are needed to clarify the impact of cryopreservation on engraftment and other transplant outcomes. International guidelines that consider the ethical framework surrounding requests for donor product cryopreservation 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".