Review of international and national principles of law in the field of tissue and cell transplantation and the approaches of improving the regulatory framework of hematopoietic stem cells transplantation in Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays in the world, transplantation develops in three directionstransplantation of organs, tissues and cells.The latter option includes, in particular, hematopoietic stem (progenitor) cells transplantation (HSCT).The above directions have both general features and their basic features of medical, infrastructural, organizational and regulatory nature.At present, there is a need for a comprehensive analysis of regulatory issues that may affect the development of HSCT system in Ukraine.The study of international and advanced national legal regulations in the field of HSCT can help in choosing the best solutions for the development of relevant regulatory documents in our country.Leading positions in the development and implementation of such documents belong to the countries of the European Union (EU), USA, Canada, Australia and others.It is relevant to conduct a comparative analysis of international and national regulations in the field of HSCT in order to identify common features and differences with the relevant regulatory documents in Ukraine.This will allow to identify disadvantages and make proposals for further Review of international and national principles of law in the field of tissue and cell transplantation and the approaches of improving the regulatory framework of hematopoietic stem cells transplantation in UkraineCell and Organ Transplantology.2018;
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".