Recruiting racialised youth to a stem cell registry in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to report results of racialised young adults' awareness of the stem cell registry. Further, we examine recruitment materials and outreach strategies to increase stem cell awareness and registration among young, racialised Canadians. BACKGROUND: Patients who are not White face disparities in securing unrelated donors because of the disproportionate representation of White registrants on stem cell registries, differences in genetic diversity across ethnicities, and attrition rates for donor registries. METHODS/MATERIALS: This qualitative study is informed by community-based participatory research. Focus groups were conducted with young adults ages 17-35 who self-identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC)/racialised, are comfortable speaking in English, and live in Canada. RESULTS: Five 2-h focus groups were conducted with 17 participants in total. Participants spoke to the interconnected themes of knowledge, trust, and engagement with their community. They were motivated by the idea of contributing to a more diverse registry. These perspectives informed their insight into what materials and events would resonate with their peers and their communities. CONCLUSION: Our findings point to some concrete suggestions for materials that can resonate with young racialised Canadians. Further, stem cell registries should work collaboratively with young adults and young adult organisations to co-develop educational and recruitment materials and build relationships over time, developing their knowledge of stem cells and raising their confidence to host stem cell events within their communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".