Interlaboratory assessment of a novel colony‐forming unit assay: a multicenter study by the cellular team of Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interlaboratory scoring performances were determined using a traditional 14-day colony-forming unit (CFU) assay and a new 7-day CFU assay. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Digital images of colonies were utilized to train personnel at each site. A central laboratory inoculated methylcellulose with progenitors and sent the samples by overnight courier to participating labs for plating. RESULTS: Colony counts from two digital images showed greater variability by novice counters (coefficients of variation [CV], 18.5 and 23.0%; n = 8) than for experienced staff (CV, 7.3 and 4.8%; n = 5). CFU assays plated immediately, 24 and 48 hours after methylcellulose inoculation displayed 39.5 CFU, 37.1 ± 10.6 (CV, 28%) and 34.8 ± 8.5 (CV, 24%) colonies for the 7-day assay and 39.5 CFU, 39.1 ± 9.9 (CV, 25%) and 37.1 ± 10.6 (CV, 28%) colonies for the 14-day assay, respectively. Overall, no significant differences in colony counts were noted between assays (p = 0.68). Also, no differences in CFU counts were seen when assays were set up immediately, 24 and 48 hours after methylcellulose inoculation (14-day p = 0.695; 7-day p = 0.632). CONCLUSION: Total CFUs obtained in 7- and 14-day CFU assays are comparable and show similar levels of interlaboratory variability. The major source of this variability is due to differences in how CFU plates are scored by individuals at different sites. UCB progenitor cells can be maintained in methylcellulose-based media at room temperature for up to 48 hours prior to transport without a significant loss in CFUs.
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 | 0.073 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".