An ultra scale‐down analysis of the recovery by dead‐end centrifugation of human cells for therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An ultra scale-down method is described to determine the response of cells to recovery by dead-end (batch) centrifugation under commercially defined manufacturing conditions. The key variables studied are the cell suspension hold time prior to centrifugation, the relative centrifugal force (RCF), time of centrifugation, cell pellet resuspension velocities, and number of resuspension passes. The cell critical quality attributes studied are the cell membrane integrity and the presence of selected surface markers. Greater hold times and higher RCF values for longer spin times all led to the increased loss of cell membrane integrity. However, this loss was found to occur during intense cell resuspension rather than the preceding centrifugation stage. Controlled resuspension at low stress conditions below a possible critical stress point led to essentially complete cell recovery even at conditions of extreme centrifugation (e.g., RCF of 10000 g for 30 mins) and long (~2 h) holding times before centrifugation. The susceptibility to cell loss during resuspension under conditions of high stress depended on cell type and the age of cells before centrifugation and the level of matrix crosslinking within the cell pellet as determined by the presence of detachment enzymes or possibly the nature of the resuspension medium. Changes in cell surface markers were significant in some cases but to a lower extent than loss of cell membrane integrity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".