MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A novel, automated method of temperature cycling to produce cryoprecipitate

2001· article· en· W2041583892 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel P. Berger, J.H. de Lange, Melanie Tokessy, Douglas S. Palmer, Antonio Giulivi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Red Cross SocietyOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryoprecipitateFibrinogenBlood productChemistryBiomedical engineeringChromatographyMedicineSurgeryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cryoprecipitate continues to find wide application in transfusion practice. Current AABB standards call for a minimum of 80 units (U) of factor VIII and 150 mg of fibrinogen per bag of cryoprecipitate. However, individual cryoprecipitates can vary greatly in content, with as many as 20 different factors known to affect the yield. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Plasma was processed in a new, rapid, automated device (CryoSeal, Thermogenesis) with computer-controlled temperature cycling to produce cryoprecipitate. RESULTS: In repeat runs (n = 20), the automated procedure yielded a product containing 184 mg of fibrinogen and 158 U of factor VIII in 55 minutes. Additional studies using plasma pools to compare the quality of the machine-generated products to those of traditionally prepared cryoprecipitate showed comparative recoveries of 182 and 187 mg of fibrinogen and 172.1 and 129.7 U of factor VIII and no significant difference in the levels of plasminogen, protein C, or protein S. CONCLUSION: The new system offers an automated method of cryoprecipitate production in which the steps involved in temperature cycling are initiated sequentially, producing within 1 hour a preparation that is equivalent to standard cryoprecipitate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207