Comparison between intermittent and continuous leukapheresis protocols for autologous hematopoietic stem cell collections in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) collections are needed for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Since 2015, our institution has utilized a secondary chamber mononuclear cell (MNC) protocol on the Spectra Optia apheresis system. Recently, a new continuous mononuclear collection protocol (CMNC) was developed for the same device. As there is limited data available regarding the use of the CMNC protocol in children, we compared collection efficiency (CE2), side effects, and clinical feasibility between the two protocols in patients <18 years old. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical, laboratory, and technical collection data from HSC collection procedures performed with the Spectra Optia apheresis system utilizing the CMNC protocol. Data were compared to retrospectively collected data utilizing the MNC protocol. Data collection included donor demographics, precollection peripheral CD34+ cell counts, total CD34+ cells collected, collection efficiency, side effects, and collection product characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 96 HSC collection procedures were performed on 79 pediatric patients utilizing either the MNC (61 patients) or CMNC (18 patients) protocol. The collection efficiencies were comparable between MNC and CMNC cohorts (52.9% vs 54.9%, P = 0.711). Platelet loss was significantly lower in the CMNC cohort (P = 0.002), especially in children weighing <15 kg. Product volumes were higher with CMNC. No significant collection-related side effects were noted with either protocol. CONCLUSIONS: MNC and CMNC protocols have comparable collection efficiencies and are both feasible and safe for the use in children. Centers may choose between the methods depending on clinical needs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".