Child and Parent Access to Transplant Information and Involvement in Treatment Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric stem cell transplant processes require information sharing among the patient, family, and clinicians regarding the child's condition, prognosis, and transplant procedures. To learn about perceived access to transplant information and involvement in decision making among child family members (9-22 years old), we completed a secondary analysis of 119 interviews conducted with pediatric patients, sibling donors, nondonor siblings/cousins, and guardians from 27 families prior to transplant. Perceptions of information access and involvement in transplant-related decisions were extracted and summarized. We compared child member perceptions to their guardians' and examined differences by child age and gender. Most child members perceived exclusion from transplant (79%) and donor (63%) information and decisions (63%) although this varied by child role. Gender was unrelated to involvement; older age was associated with less perceived exclusion. Congruence in perspectives across children and guardians was evident for eight (30%) families, most of whom ( n = 7) excluded the children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".