Choosing Wisely BMT: American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group's List of 5 Tests and Treatments to Question in Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choosing Wisely encourages dialogue about reducing unnecessary procedures, tests, or treatments in healthcare. The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT) and Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group (CBMTG) established a Choosing Wisely BMT Task Force whose objective was to create a list of top 5 practices in blood and marrow transplantation to be questioned. The Task Force consisted of representatives from ASBMT's Quality Outcomes, Education, and Practice Guidelines committees; ASBMT's Pharmacy Special Interest Group; CBMTG Program Directors; and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Suggestions for current transplantation practices to question were elicited from the CBMTG Program Directors; members of ASBMT's Quality Outcomes, Practice Guidelines, and Education committees; and chairs of the CIBMTR scientific working committees. We received 119 unique suggestions that were ranked based on their potential impact on harm reduction, cost reduction, necessity of the test or practice, and the strength of available evidence. Through a modified Delphi process, suggestions were narrowed down to 6, which were then subjected to systematic reviews. The final 5 recommendations focus on graft source for patients with aplastic anemia, corticosteroid dose for initial treatment of graft-versus-host-disease, optimal number of umbilical cord blood units for transplantation, graft source in matched unrelated donor transplantation, and use of prophylactic intravenous immunoglobulin in transplant recipients. These Choosing Wisely BMT recommendations are relevant to the current clinical practice of blood and marrow transplantation and focus on tests, treatments, or procedures that may be harmful, wasteful, or for which there is no apparent clinical benefit.
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 | 0.035 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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".