ASBMT Practice Guidelines Committee Survey on Long-Term Follow-Up Clinics for Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant advances in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have increased the long-term survivorship of its recipients, but because of unique complications arising from radiation and chemotherapy, recipients require lifelong follow-up. To evaluate current survivorship or long-term follow-up (LTFU) clinics specifically for HCT survivors and to evaluate the potential barriers in their establishment, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT) Practice Guidelines Committee electronically surveyed 200 HCT programs to gather quantitative and qualitative data about models of care. Among 77 programs (38.5%) that responded, 45% indicated presence of an LTFU clinic; however, LTFU care models varied with respect to services provided, specialist availability, type of patients served, and staffing. Among 55% of programs without an LTFU clinic, 100% agreed that allogeneic HCT survivors have unique needs separate from graft-versus-host disease and that complications could arise during the transition of care either from pediatric to adult settings or away from the HCT center. Lack of expertise, logistics, financial issues, and the observation that 84% of individual practitioners prefer to provide survivorship care were the identified obstacles to establishing new LTFU clinics. The ASBMT hopes that policymakers, HCT providers, and institutions will benefit from the results of this survey and recommends that delivering guidelines-driven screening and expert management of late effects is the goal of first-rate HCT survivorship care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".