Impact of storage temperature and processing delays on cord blood quality: discrepancy between functional in vitro and in vivo assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal conditions of cord blood (CB) storage, processing, cryopreservation, and thawing are critical for banking and transplantation. Nevertheless, standardized procedures are still awaited. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated the impact of preprocessing storage and temperature on recovery, viability, and functional differentiation capacities of hematopoietic progenitor cells. We compared units stored at room temperature (RT) or at 4 °C for 72 hours before cryopreservation to units processed shortly after collection (<12 hr). RESULTS: Postthaw results showed similar in vitro characteristics between immediate processing and 4 °C storage for cell recovery and viability, both significantly higher than RT storage. Surprisingly, we demonstrated that storage of CB units at RT before processing and cryopreservation profoundly altered in vivo hematopoietic reconstitution in mice, although in vitro hematopoietic colony-forming unit potential was unaltered. CONCLUSION: Our findings challenge current CB storage practices and suggest standard in vitro quality assessments may not always be indicative of CB engraftment potential.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".