SOGC CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES Umbilical Cord Blood Banking: Implications for
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the risks and benefits of umbilical cord blood banking for future stem cell transplantation and to provide guidelines for Canadian perinatal care providers regarding the counselling, procedural, and ethical implications of this potential therapeutic option. Options: Selective or routine collection and storage of umbilical cord blood for future autologous (self) or allogeneic (related or unrelated) transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells to treat malignant and nonmalignant disorders in children and adults. Outcomes: Maternal and perinatal morbidity, indications for umbilical cord blood transplantation, short- and long-term risks and benefits of umbilical cord blood transplantation, burden of umbilical cord blood collection on perinatal care providers, parental satisfaction, and health care costs. Evidence: MEDLINE and PubMed searches were conducted from January 1970 to October 2003 for English-language articles related to umbilical cord blood collection, banking, and transplantation; the Cochrane library was searched; and committee opinions of the
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 | 0.025 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.010 |
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".