A quality monitoring program for red blood cell components: in vitro quality indicators before and after implementation of semiautomated processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian Blood Services has been conducting quality monitoring of red blood cell (RBC) components since 2005, a period spanning the implementation of semiautomated component production. The aim was to compare the quality of RBC components produced before and after this production method change. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from 572 RBC units were analyzed, categorized by production method: Method 1, RBC units produced by manual production methods; Method 2, RBC units produced by semiautomated production and the buffy coat method; and Method 3, RBC units produced by semiautomated production and the whole blood filtration method. RBC units were assessed using an extensive panel of in vitro tests, encompassing regulated quality control criteria such as hematocrit (Hct), hemolysis, and hemoglobin (Hb) levels, as well as adenosine triphosphate, 2,3-diphosphoglycerate, extracellular K(+) and Na(+) levels, methemoglobin, p50, RBC indices, and morphology. RESULTS: Throughout the study, all RBC units met mandated Canadian Standards Association guidelines for Hb and Hct, and most (>99%) met hemolysis requirements. However, there were significant differences among RBC units produced using different methods. Hb content was significantly lower in RBC units produced by Method 2 (51.5 ± 5.6 g/unit; p < 0.001). At expiry, hemolysis was lowest in Method 2-produced RBC units (p < 0.05) and extracellular K(+) levels were lowest in units produced by Method 1 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While overall quality was similar before and after the production method change, the observed differences, although small, indicate a lack of equivalency across RBC products manufactured by different methods.
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 | 0.001 | 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".