[Japan Marrow Donor Program and its coordinating process: current situations].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated 18,487 patients and 223,842 cases of donor coordination among patients enrolled in the Japan Marrow Donor Program (JMDP) from January 2004 to December 2013. For patients who underwent stem cell transplantation from a JMDP donor [unrelated bone marrow transplantation (UBMT)], the median number of coordination and days from registration to transplantation were 11 and 146, respectively. Among enrolled patients, 40% did not undergo UBMT. With the increased estimated number of human leukocyte antigen 6/6-matched donors, the probability of undergoing UBMT was higher, and in those who underwent UBMT, the duration of coordination was shorter. Regarding the reasons for the termination of coordination, those attributable to the donors varied depending on the age and sex of the donors. Male donors in their 20s had lower and higher termination rates because of health conditions and inconvenience, respectively, compared with donors of different age and female sex. Among donors who experienced coordination more than once, the donation rate was higher if the precedent coordination ended because of reasons attributable to the patient compared with the donation rate because of other reasons. Using the results of our study, strategies to achieve a more efficient and rapid coordination process are warranted.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".