Flow cytometric determination of residual white blood cell levels in preserved samples from leukoreduced blood products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In preparation for a proposed consolidated testing service, Canadian Blood Services undertook the evaluation of a commercial test kit for the enumeration by flow cytometry of residual white blood cells (rWBCs) present in preserved samples recovered from leukoreduced (LR) blood and platelet products. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The stability of preserved WBCs, the equivalency of WBCs used for spiking, test method precision, specificity, reliability, accuracy, and sensitivity were investigated. For comparative purposes, WBC counts were also determined by Nageotte as well as by flow cytometry. RESULTS: WBCs were stable up to 4 weeks at room temperature for all components by either method. Within methods, no differences were observed due to the source of WBC used for spiking purposes. By either method, test precision was acceptable (<20% coefficient of variation) and of similar reliability at a target value of 10 +/- 5 WBCs per microL. The flow cytometric method was shown to be more specific and accurate than the Nageotte method. Sensitivity by either method was 0.1 WBCs per microL. On average, Nageotte counts were lower than those observed by flow cytometry. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that WBCs in WBC stabilizing solution-treated samples from LR blood components were stabilized up to 4 weeks at room temperature and that rWBC determinations made with a WBC enumeration kit by flow cytometry have the required precision, specificity, reliability, and accuracy in the relevant test range. This validated WBC stabilization and flow cytometric counting method is considered acceptable as part of a quality control program for leukoreduced blood products.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".