Development of a quality monitoring program for platelet components: a report of the first four years' experience at Canadian Blood Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A quality monitoring program (QMP) for platelet concentrates (PCs) was implemented at Canadian Blood Services (CBS) to improve standards and to better understand platelet (PLT) products by supplementing routine quality control (QC). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Annual surveys of PCs from CBS production sites were conducted, with four completed to date (QMP Cycles 1-4) spanning two different PC production methods: PLT-rich plasma (PRP) and buffy coat (BC). Randomly selected PCs were sent to a central laboratory and tested 1 day after expiry. An expanded panel of tests including CD62P expression by flow cytometry, mean PLT volume, PLT count and morphology, extent of shape change, and PLT metabolic parameters, were applied. RESULTS: QMP data on the implementation of the BC production method across CBS indicated that BC PCs have less variable in vitro quality measures than PRP PCs. For the QC parameters pH and PLT count per unit, the range of mean values from each site for QMP 3 and 4 fell well within the range defined by regulatory standards, a first step in defining quality benchmarks for PCs. Of the extended panel of quality parameters, CD62P expression was the most sensitive indicator of change and identified an issue with the implementation of the BC PC production method at one site, which was subsequently remedied. CONCLUSION: A QMP was found to be useful to monitor production processes across sites and highlights best practice approaches while deepening understanding of the quality of PLT products at CBS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".