Assessing opportunities and challenges for establishing a national program to distribute cord blood for research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research is needed to enhance cord blood (CB) transplantation outcomes and to develop new clinical applications. Based on quality criteria for transplantation, CB collected by public CB banks (CBBs) is often unsuitable for banking, but may still be valuable for research. Canadian researchers have described a need for a centralized program providing ethically sourced CB for research projects. To meet this need, Canadian Blood Services (CBS), in partnership with The Ottawa Hospital, launched the Cord Blood for Research Program (CBRP) in 2014. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The CBRP developed processes for donor research consent and research project approval with oversight from CBS's CBB and appropriate research ethics boards. The CBRP distributes deidentified CB products to research projects across Canada. RESULTS: Since its inception, the CBRP has distributed more than 525 CB units to researchers, supporting 11 research projects. Of the mothers who donate their baby's CB, 77% have chosen to consent to its use for research if it is not bankable. The number of CB units currently available for research via the CBRP exceeds the requests from researchers. CONCLUSION: The CBRP reliably distributes quality CB products that do not qualify for banking to investigators across Canada in an ethical, legal, and transparent manner. This provides an opportunity for the public to directly support research, helps meet the need expressed by Canada's research community, and maximizes the donor's gift. More research is needed to clarify the factors influencing donor and researcher participation in the CBRP.
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 | 0.198 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".