Use of non‐qualifying umbilical cord blood units to support research and quality assurance by the Canadian Blood Services Cord Blood Bank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord blood units collected by Canadian Blood Services for public banking at selected collection hospitals may not meet stringent criteria for release to the bank's inventory and can be used to support research. The Cord Blood for Research Program (CB4RP) was established when the CBS bank was established, but the breadth of research activity supported by the CB4RP has not been previously described. METHODS: Records of projects and units requested to support research were reviewed and summarized from September 2014 to October 2024. RESULTS: A total of 34 projects have been supported by the CB4RP, with a total of 2901 units requested (85.4 units per project, range 6-540). To date, 1505 fresh units and 28 frozen units have been shipped to researchers. Areas of research supported by the CB4RP include hematopoietic cell transplant research, regenerative therapy, immunology research, cancer research, transfusion research, and other categories. CONCLUSION: Distributing non-qualifying cord blood units for research leverages the public investments implicated in establishing the CBS CBB and supports the development of expertise across a broad range of research areas.
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 | 0.035 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".