Quality of red blood cells washed using a second wash sequence on an automated cell processor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Washed red blood cells (RBCs) are indicated for immunoglobulin (Ig)A-deficient recipients when RBCs from IgA-deficient donors are not available. Canadian Blood Services recently began using the automated ACP 215 cell processor (Haemonetics Corporation) for RBC washing, and its suitability to produce IgA-deficient RBCs was investigated. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: RBCs produced from whole blood donations by the buffy coat (BC) and whole blood filtration (WBF) methods were washed using the ACP 215 or the COBE 2991 cell processors and IgA and total protein levels were assessed. A double-wash procedure using the ACP 215 was developed, tested, and validated by assessing hemolysis, hematocrit, recovery, and other in vitro quality variables in RBCs stored after washing, with and without irradiation. RESULTS: A single wash using the ACP 215 did not meet Canadian Standards Association recommendations for washing with more than 2 L of solution and could not consistently reduce IgA to levels suitable for IgA-deficient recipients (24/26 BC RBCs and 0/9 WBF RBCs had IgA levels < 0.05 mg/dL). Using a second wash sequence, all BC and WBF units were washed with more than 2 L and had levels of IgA of less than 0.05 mg/dL. During 7 days' postwash storage, with and without irradiation, double-washed RBCs met quality control criteria, except for the failure of one RBC unit for inadequate (69%) postwash recovery. CONCLUSION: Using the ACP 215, a double-wash procedure for the production of components for IgA-deficient recipients from either BC or WBF RBCs was developed and validated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".