Peripheral venous catheter collection of immune effector cells and hematopoietic stem cells is feasible and safe in older pediatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Collection of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) and immune effector cells (IEC) has unique challenges in children. To maintain adequate blood flow, central venous catheters (CVCs) remain the standard of care in many centers, but are associated with procedural risks and increased resource utilization. The goal of this study was to determine feasibility and safety of peripheral venous catheter (PVC) cell collection in older children. METHODS: Patients and donors requiring venous access with weight >25 kg, age >8 years were screened for PVC collection via 18G PVCs. Those with poor venous access (on history/exam/pre-screening ultrasound) or unable to maintain suitable procedural position were excluded. Comparison was made to CVC collections in a matched patient cohort. RESULTS: Thirty-eight individuals were screened and met age/weight criteria for PVC collection. Five did not have PVC collection attempted due to poor access (n = 4) or behavioral concerns (n = 1). Thirty-three had PVC collection attempt (HSC = 22; IEC = 11) with median age 15.3 year (range 9.7-18.0) and weight 58.5 kg (range 27.9-115.4). Thirty-two of 33 (97%) patients were collected successfully by PVC without adverse events. Comparing PVC to matched CVC collection cohort (n = 18), there was no significant difference in flow rate (48.2 mL/h vs 53.9 mL/h, p = 0.12), collection time (266 min vs 262 min, p = 0.85) or collection efficiency (IEC/CD3 60.9% vs 60.8% p = 0.99; HSC/CD34 53.6% vs 41.3% p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: PVC collection of HSC and IEC is feasible and safe in older children with comparable collection efficiency to CVC collections. Ultrasound screening may reduce failure rates. PVC collections can reduce the risk of CVC insertions and associated healthcare costs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".