Comparison of cord blood thawing methods on cell recovery, potency, and infusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord blood (UCB) products have traditionally been thawed using a washing method intended to stabilize the cells, reduce dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) toxicity, and remove potentially ABO-incompatible red blood cell (RBC) stroma and plasma. Concerns with this approach include loss of total nucleated cells (TNCs), bag breakage during centrifugation, and poor reproducibility by transplant centers unfamiliar with this technique. We rationalized that a simple 1:1 dilution without centrifugation would stabilize the product and reduce the DMSO concentration by 50%, allowing for a controlled thaw in the laboratory without the risks of cell loss. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared the traditional wash method with albumin reconstitution (dilution) and thaw only (no dilution or wash), assessing measurements of viability, TNC, CD34, and colony-forming cell (CFC) recovery post-thaw. Ten cryopreserved UCB products were thawed, split equally into three parts, and treated using each method. Product stability was measured at multiple time intervals up to 48hours post-thaw. RESULTS: Throughout the entire evaluation, traditional wash and dilution methods performed equally well with no significant differences observed in 7-aminoactinomycin viability, TNC, CD34, or CFC recovery. For 163 patients in which diluted products were administered, there were no serious adverse effects at infusion and similar time to engraftment was observed when compared to historical experiences with traditional wash and direct infusion. CONCLUSION: We conclude that removing DMSO, RBC stroma, and plasma post-thaw using a wash method is not necessary when UCB products are RBC and plasma reduced before cryopreservation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".