Plasma and cryoprecipitate manufactured from whole blood held overnight at room temperature meet quality standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With buffy coat (BC) processing of whole blood (WB) donations, the preparation of plasma occurs within 24 hours rather than 8 hours of collection. The effect of this change on coagulation factor function in plasma and cryoprecipitate was evaluated during the validation of this production method and with routine production. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Plasma frozen after an overnight hold of WB was prepared via BC or whole blood filtration (WBF) methods and quality control (QC) variables were measured. Additionally, plasma prepared with the BC method was compared to plasma produced using the platelet-rich plasma (PRP) method with an extended plasma factor analysis. Selected plasma factor levels were also measured in both cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant plasma prepared using the WBF method from plasma frozen on the day of collection or after an overnight hold of WB. RESULTS: When comparing BC plasma to PRP plasma, coagulation factors (F)II, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI had somewhat lower levels, and fibrinogen and antithrombin levels were elevated. As expected the most sensitive to the prolongation of production time was FVIII with 72 and 78% of the activity of PRP plasma and cryoprecipitate, respectively. However, both still met QC standards. Similarly, products made in routine production show acceptable levels of FVIII. CONCLUSION: Plasma and cryoprecipitate products, prepared using methods in which the plasma is frozen close to 24 hours after collection, meet current quality standards. The longer WB storage time has been implemented into general use in Canada.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".