Screening of related donors and peripheral blood stem cell collection practices at different Italian apheresis centres.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recommendations on eligibility criteria for donation of haematopoietic stem cells, management of collection of the cells and follow-up mainly concern unrelated donors. The aim of this study was to analyse the screening of related donors and collection practices at different Italian apheresis centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire regarding eligibility criteria for related haematopoietic stem cell donors, their peripheral blood collections and early follow-up was sent to several apheresis units. Data from the full charts of 500 candidates, screened between May 2005 and December 2009, were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The donors' records, eligibility criteria, collections and follow-up are managed differently in each centre. Of the 500 evaluable candidates (51.2% male, 49.8% female; median age 47 years, range 13-77), 26.4% underwent thorough screening according to Italian Bone Marrow Donor Registry standards, while local protocols were applied to 73.6%; 91 candidates (18.2%) proved ineligible for donation. In the end, 352 donors (53.4% male, 46.6% female; median age 45 years, range 16-76) underwent 508 leukaphereses. Central venous catheters were used in 8.0% of donors, mainly in one centre. Unsuitable pre-apheresis peripheral blood parameters were reported in 38.7% of the aphereses. Leukapheresis-related adverse events were recorded in 23.0% of the procedures, with a drop-out rate of 0.2% for severe events. No donation-related fatalities occurred. The CD34+ cell yield was <2×10(6)/kg of recipient's body weight from 1.1% of donors ≥70 years old. DISCUSSION: More uniformity in donor screening procedures, management of peripheral blood collection and follow-up should be planned at a national level to maximise the safety of related donors.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".