Factors Associated With Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Quality in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord blood (UCB) has become an established alternative source of hematopoietic stem cells with marrow and postmobilization peripheral blood. The presence of a large amount of clots may lead to the deterioration of cord blood quality. To improve UCB quality as a source of hematopoietic stem cells in Japan, we examined factors associated with UCB collection methods from the viewpoint of eliminating the presence of clots. METHODS: In August 2019, we requested the directors of 74 certified facilities to provide information on UCB collection methods in Japan. A total of 46 (62.2%) of them responded with valid information on a total of 2,892 UCB collections. In this study, collected UCB without clots macroscopically was evaluated as a high-quality UCB. RESULTS: The 2,891 UCB collections described during the study period were divided to those with (n = 760, 26.3%) and without clots (high quality; n = 2,131, 73.7%). Multivariate analysis revealed single puncture as a factor determining high-quality UCB collection (adjusted odds ratio (ORs): 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3 - 5.4, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Single puncture is an independent effective factor determining high-quality manual UCB collection in Japan.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".