Development of indicators and analysis of barriers for assessment and prevention of cutaneous graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective·To gain a comprehensive understanding of the current clinical status of assessment and prevention of cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children, construct review indicators, analyze obstacles and facilitators in the process of conducting the study in light of clinical reality, and formulate strategies for change.Methods·Utilizing the JBI Evidence-Based Health Care Model as a theoretical guiding framework, the clinical problem was clarified. An evidence-based practice team was established, and a systematic literature search was conducted. The evidence was then evaluated and summarized. Additionally, review indicators were constructed, and review methods were clarified in relation to the evidence. Using the Ottawa Model of Research Use, the three dimensions of evidence change, potential adopters, and practice environment were analyzed for barriers and facilitators, and corresponding strategies were developed.Results·A total of 24 pieces of best evidence were included in the study, comprising five dimensions: skin assessment, assessment of protection, management of adverse skin reactions, medication guidance and follow-up and screening. Twenty-two review indicators were constructed on this basis, of which 14 had an implementation rate of <60% and 10 had an implementation rate of 0%; 8 had an implementation rate of >60% and 6 had an implementation rate of 100.00%. The main obstacles were the lack of relevant training and the absence of a rational management mechanism. The main facilitating factors were reliable sources of evidence and a high level of cooperation from potential stakeholders. Considering the results of the analysis of the implementation rate of the indicators under review and the obstacles, alternative measures were formulated.Conclusion·There is a large gap between the evidence and clinical practice for the assessment and prevention of cutaneous GVHD after paediatric haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clinical change should be effectively implemented based on barriers and facilitators.
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 | 0.099 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".