Serious Adverse Events in Related Donors: A Report from the Related Donor Safe Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence and risk factors for severe adverse events (SAEs) in related donors (RD) of hematopoietic cell transplants is unknown. The Related Donor Safe study is a prospective observational cohort of 1680 RDs and represents an opportunity to examine characteristics of SAEs in RDs. In this cohort, we found that SAEs were reported in a total 12 (0.71%) RDs. Of these, 5 SAEs occurred in bone marrow donors (5/404, 1.24%), and 7 (7/1276, 0.55%) were in donors of peripheral blood stem cells. All of the SAEs were considered to be related (definite, probable, or possible) to the donation process. There were no donor fatalities. Of the 12 RDs who experienced an SAE, 10 were either overweight or obese. Five of the 12 RDs had predonation medical conditions that would have resulted in either possible or definite ineligibility for donation were they being assessed as unrelated donors. These SAE data will be useful in the counseling of prospective RDs before planned donation and may be helpful in identifying donors who should be considered medically unsuitable for donation.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".