Quality assurance of progenitor cell content of apheresis products: a comparison of clonogenic assays and CD34+ enumeration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most common methods used for evaluation of the haematopoietic stem cell content of peripheral blood apheresis products are the colony forming cell assay and the enumeration of CD34+ cells by flow cytometry. The Canadian Apheresis Group and the Canadian Bone Marrow Transplant Group established a multicentre study to compare the reproducibility of colony forming cell assays and CD34+ enumeration by flow cytometry in six transplant centres routinely performing haematopoietic stem cell apheresis. Over a 5-month period in 1996, 31 fresh apheresis samples were shipped by overnight courier for testing at six centres to perform CD34+ enumeration by flow cytometry and clonogenic assays. The mean coefficient of variation and range for the following assays were: cell count 36% (2.6-148%), CFU-GM 82% (46-123%), CD34+ absolute/kg 60% (14-174%) and CD34+ per cent 42% (12-84%). The wide variation in cell count in this pilot study highlights the difficulties related to provision of samples for quality assessment programmes. Results showed poor interinstitutional reproducibility even among selected samples with similar cell counts for both CFC and CD34+ assays demonstrating the need for development and implementation of an interinstitutional quality assurance programme for haematopoietic stem cell assessment. Provision of a reliable source of testing material will be a necessary next step.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".