MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062053976 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.12.140

Cord Blood Storage Following Collection: Impact on Volume Reduction and Cryopreservation

2009· article· en· W2062053976 on OpenAlexaff
Hugo Morin, Éric Wagner, Martin Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsHéma-QuébecCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryopreservationAndrologyCord bloodMedicineViability assayCellImmunologyBiologyEmbryoCell biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delays from cord blood (CB) collection to processing and cryopreservation vary among CB banks and optimal CB storage length and conditions are still poorly defined. Only about 25% of the collected CB units contain a total nucleated cell (TNC) content ≥1 × 109, providing enough cells to transplant a 40 kg recipient. Our preliminary results suggest that CB is best stored at 4°C for up to 3 days without significant losses in cell numbers and viability. We tested whether pre-cryopreservation CB storage conditions impact cell recovery and viability after processing and cryopreservation. CB units were collected and processed and cryopreserved either on the day of collection (day 0) or after a 3-day storage at 4°C or room temperature (RT). They were volume-reduced by buffy coat separation (Optipress II) or red cell sedimentation (Hespan). Processed CB units were cryopreserved and stored for 1 month before thawing and washing, and were assessed for TNC, mononucleated cell (MNC) and CD34+ cell recovery, and CD45+ and CD34+ cell viability. Storage at RT for 3 days induced a significant loss in TNC and MNC after processing whereas storage at 4°C did not induce a significant change compared to units processed on day 0. Both Optipress II- and Hespan-processed CB units showed low CD45+ cell viabilities when stored at RT (e.g. 64 ± 10% at RT and 82 ± 8% at 4°C vs 98 ± 2% on day 0, p<0.002 vs day 0 for the Optipress group). Interestingly, CB units stored at RT for 3 days showed reduced TNC, MNC and CD34+ cell recoveries and reduced CD34+ cell viability upon thawing and washing compared to units cryopreserved on day 0 or stored at 4°C for 3 days (e.g. CD34+ cell viability in the Optipress group: 70 ± 14% at RT, 87 ± 10% at 4°C vs 84 ± 5% on day 0, p<0,03 vs day 0). These results indicate that prolonged storage at RT prior to cryopreservation can negatively impact CB cell recovery and viability after processing and upon thawing and washing of cryopreserved units.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207