Donor selection for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: Assessment of the priorities of Canadian hematopoietic stem cell transplant physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation is applied in the management of cancer. It involves myeloablative chemoradiotherapy followed by infusion of donor stem cells. The characteristics of the donor stern cells influences transplant outcomes which itself, is dependent on the donor characteristics. The purpose of this thesis was to explore preferences over donor characteristics. A systematic review was performed to identify all donor characteristics associated with outcome. Eight traditional and 5 non-traditional characteristics were identified. The results of the review were used to inform a survey of the Canadian Bone Marrow Transplant Group which primarily includes transplant physicians. An online survey and conjoint analysis of Canadian Bone Marrow Transplant Group members was performed to define relative importance of donor characteristics. Canadian Bone Marrow Transplant Group members, including transplant physicians caring for adults strongly indicate preference for donors related to recipients (HR 2.97) over the donor's age, gender and cytomegalovirus compatibility.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".