Evaluation of stabilized blood cell products as candidate preparations for quality assessment programs for CD4 T‐cell counting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exceptionally robust cell preparations are needed for quality assessment programs (QAPs) such as the International Program for Quality Assessment and Standardization for Immunological Measures (QASI) relevant to HIV/AIDS. A suitable product must withstand environmental stress related to transportation for a minimum of 6 days. The two objectives of this study are (1) to evaluate the performance of various commercial preparations with multicenter participation and (2) to evaluate the robustness of stabilized blood cell products. METHODS: Phase 1: The performance of stabilized blood cell products was evaluated in a multicenter QAP utilizing various staining procedures and flow cytometers. Absolute cell enumeration was achieved using single-platform T-cell subset methodology. Phase 2: The robustness of stabilized blood cell products was evaluated by monitoring T-cell subset values from samples stored at 4 degrees C, 22 degrees C, and 37 degrees C for up to 10 days. RESULTS: The largest interlaboratory variation in both absolute and relative T-cell values was 16% in samples with CD4 levels > or =400 cells per microliter and 21% in samples with CD4 levels <400 cells per microliter. Six preparations retained their phenotypic expression for 7 days at 4 degrees C and 22 degrees C. However, only two preparations remained stable for 4 days at 37 degrees C. CONCLUSION: Some stabilized cell preparations are more robust and therefore more suitable for quality assessment purposes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".