Implementation of buffy coat platelet component production: comparison to platelet‐rich plasma platelet production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Buffy coat (BC) production of platelets (PLTs) has been successfully used in Europe for more than two decades. Currently, Canadian Blood Services is implementing the BC method. This article summarizes results of the validation testing performed to qualify the process of PLT production from whole blood and compares the quality of PLTs produced in routine production by either the PLT-rich plasma method (PRP-PCs) or the BC method (BC-PCs). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Validation data included variables used for routine quality control (QC; pH, PLT count, volume, sterility, residual white blood cell count) as well as nonroutine testing of PLTs for PLT activation, metabolic changes during storage, and PLT responsiveness to hypotonic shock and the extent of shape change induced by adenosine 5'-diphosphate. BC-PCs were tested on Days 1 and 6. QC of production runs included the same routine tests performed on Day 6. RESULTS: PLTs produced by the BC method during validation and pilot implementation met all Canadian Standards Association standards with respect to yield, volume, pH, and leukoreduction. Additional validation testing indicated a moderate level of PLT storage lesion development. In comparison to PRP-PCs, in vitro variables of BC-PCs, either pH in this study, or other markers compared to the literature were better, suggesting that BC-PCs have less evidence of production-related damage and improved PLT quality during storage. CONCLUSIONS: PLT concentrates produced from whole blood by the BC method after an overnight hold have laboratory variables suggestive of a higher quality than those concentrates produced by the PRP method.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".