MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590477889 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.12.273

Optimizing Autologous Mononuclear Cell Collections for Cellular Therapy Using the Novel Optia Apheresis Device in Pediatric Patients with High Risk Leukemia

2017· article· en· W2590477889 on OpenAlexaff
Ehud Even‐Or, Maria Di Mola, Muhammad Ali, Sarah Courtney, Elizabeth McDougall, Sarah Alexander, Tal Schechter, James A. Whitlock, Christoph Licht, Joerg Krueger

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Communication and Nanonetworks
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApheresisPeripheral blood mononuclear cellNuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Manufacturing of cellular products for immunotherapy such as CAR T-cells requires successful collection of mononuclear cells (MNC). Collections from children with high risk leukemia present a challenge as the established COBE Spectra apheresis device (COBE) is being replaced by the novel Spectra Optia device (Optia) and published experience with the Optia device in children is lacking. Our aim was to compare the two collection devices, and describe settings to optimize MNC collections on the new Optia device. Study Design and Methods: As a quality initiative we retrospectively collected and compared data from MNC collections on both devices. Collected data included patient's demographic and clinical characteristics, collection parameters including pre collection lymphocyte and CD3+ counts, total blood volumes (TBVs) processed, procedure runtimes, side effects including CBC and electrolyte changes, and product characteristics including product volumes and cell counts. Collection efficiencies and collection ratios were calculated. Results: Twenty six MNC collections were performed on 20 pediatric patients; 11 with the COBE device and 15 with the Optia device. Adequate MNC products were successfully collected with a single procedure from all patients on both machines except the first collection on the Optia. The mean calculated MNC collection efficiency was significantly higher with Optia collections as compared to COBE (57.9 ± 4.6% vs 40.3 ± 6.2%, respectively, P = .04). CD3+ yields where comparable on both machines with mean product CD3+ of 2.03 ± .44 cells/kg with COBE vs 1.54 ± .24 cells/kg with Optia (P = .34). Significantly smaller blood volumes were processed with Optia with comparable collection times. Collected product volumes on the Optia were significantly larger and contained significantly less white blood cell and red blood cell counts. Recent chemotherapy did not affect collection yields. No significant side effects attributed to the procedure were noted. Conclusion: MNC apheresis using the Optia device in children is more efficient and as safe as with the COBE device.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicMolecular Communication and NanonetworksFrench-language works237,207