Predictive factors for successful peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and collection in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Factors affecting the success of peripheral blood stem cell collection (SCC) in children are not well characterized. We reviewed 218 stem cell collections among 199 pediatric donors, of which 35 were from healthy sibling donors and 164 were for autologous collections. Successful SCC, defined as a CD34+ cell count of ≥2 × 106/kg of recipient weight per intended transplant, occurred in 188 of 199 donors (94%). Ideal SCC defined ≥5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg of recipient per intended transplant, occurred in 147 (74%) patients. Failure of collection occurred in 11 (6%) patients and was significantly associated with an autologous collection for a brain tumor diagnosis (P = .003) and a pre‐apheresis peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ count <20 × 106 cells/L (P = .002). Ideal SCC was significantly associated with age < 10 years (P = .01) and pre‐apheresis PB‐CD34+ count ≥20 × 106 cells/L (P < .0001). Factors associated with failure of SCC may be identified in advance of the collection procedure allowing appropriate counselling of patients as well as anticipatory guidance for multiple collections or justify the preemptive use of stem cell mobilizing agents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".