Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current methods for pathogen inactivation of plasma involve four major processes using solvent-detergent (SD), methylene blue (MB), amotosalen and riboflavin as additives. Three of these methods involve the use of visible or ultraviolet light. METHODS: A comparison of the four methods was made using publications in Medline, Pubmed, Embase and Biosis to obtain data on the logistics of use, the quality of the plasma proteins and the effectiveness of pathogen inactivation. RESULTS: Three of the methods, MB, amotosalen and riboflavin, are designed for use in a blood bank; the SD method is generally applied at a centralized manufacturing centre and involves large plasma pools. All methods result in a reduction in protein values with the per cent retention of FVIII activity in the range of 67-78% and fibrinogen of 65-84%. Protein S and alpha(2)-antiplasmin are lower following solvent-detergent treatment. Alterations in fibrinogen structure have been reported with methylene blue. DISCUSSION: Three of the methods are designed for small volume use in a blood bank. All four methods have some effect on the coagulant proteins; however, the final concentrations are within regulated limits. While there is variability in the effectiveness against pathogens, direct comparison is difficult because of the methodologies used. Nonetheless, all are effective in inactivating HIV and other lipid-enveloped pathogens. Clinical studies on the effectiveness of these products are surprisingly sparse, and no randomized clinical trials have yet been performed with amotosalen or riboflavin plasmas.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".