Comparison of two apheresis systems for autologous stem cell collections in pediatric oncology patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral stem cell collections can be challenging in the pediatric population and respective experience is limited. Since February 2015 our institution is utilizing the new Spectra Optia (Optia) apheresis device, which has replaced the former COBE Spectra (COBE) device. As a quality initiative we collected and compared collection efficiency (CE2) and other collection variables between the two devices. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective study we collected and compared clinical, laboratory, and technical collection data from stem cell collection procedures done with the Optia and COBE devices. The collected data included patient demographics, precollection peripheral CD34+ cell counts, total CD34+ cells collected, complete blood count, electrolytes before and after collection, side effects attributed to the collection, total blood volumes processed (TBVs), collection times, and calculated CE2 and collection ratios. RESULTS: Forty-one collection procedures performed on 29 pediatric patients with the Optia device were compared to 41 collections performed on 27 patients with the COBE device. The TBVs through the Optia device were significantly smaller than the COBE (3.9 ± 0.2 × TBV vs. 5.5 ± 0.1 × TBV, respectively; p < 0.001), requiring significantly less anticoagulant and providing similar amounts of stem cells while collection times were significantly shorter (mean, 238 ± 9 min vs. 264 ± 9 min, respectively; p < 0.05). Collections on the Optia caused significantly smaller reductions of plasma calcium and magnesium. No significant side effects attributed to the procedure were noted. CONCLUSION: Stem cell apheresis with the Optia device in children is safe and feasible with smaller blood volumes with shorter collection times.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".