Why We Swab: A library of stories in stem cell donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stories are powerful in their ability to disseminate information in a meaningful way. We hypothesized that a stem cell donation story library optimized for social media could support the education and recruitment of committed unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donors from needed demographic groups. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We developed Why We Swab, a library of stories on stem cell donation (facebook.com/WhyWeSwab; instagram.com/WhyWeSwab; twitter.com/WhyWeSwab), and evaluated its impact across social and traditional media as well as on eligible potential donors' knowledge and attitudes towards donation. RESULTS: As of December 2021, the library included 28 story arcs featuring 45 storytellers from diverse ancestral backgrounds, including 8 donor-recipient stories. Overall, the stories reached >92,000 people across social media. Notably, stories were republished by 18 print/ broadcast media outlets in Canada and by major medical organizations. A series of stories shown to 33 eligible potential donors improved mean total scores on a donation knowledge test (64% to 85%, p < 0.001), reduced mean ambivalence scale scores (3.85 to 2.70, p < 0.001), and improved participants' willingness to register as donors (45% to 73%, p < 0.005). Data are also shown demonstrating that stakeholders valued the library and that its deployment was associated with improved donor recruitment outcomes in Canada. CONCLUSION: Why We Swab is accessible and relevant to a wide audience, including stem cell donor registries and recruitment organizations seeking to improve their recruitment efforts as well as to blood and organ & tissue donation organizations who can adapt the Why We Swab model to their audiences.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".