MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609629414 · doi:10.1111/trf.14094

Optimizing autologous nonmobilized mononuclear cell collections for cellular therapy in pediatric patients with high‐risk leukemia

2017· article· en· W2609629414 on OpenAlexafffund
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

VenueTransfusion · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsPeripheral blood mononuclear cellMedicineApheresisImmunotherapyCellInternal medicineCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The manufacturing of cellular products for immunotherapy, such as chimeric antigen receptor T cells, requires successful collection of mononuclear cells. Collections from children with high-risk leukemia present a challenge, especially because the established COBE Spectra apheresis device is being replaced by the novel Spectra Optia device (Optia) in many institutions. Published experience for mononuclear cell collections in children with Optia is lacking. Our aim was to compare the two collection devices and describe modified settings on the Optia to optimize mononuclear cell collections. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: As a quality initiative, we retrospectively collected and compared data from mononuclear cell collections on both devices. Collected data included patient's clinical characteristics; collection parameters, including precollection lymphocyte/CD3 counts, total blood volumes processed, runtimes, and side effects (including complete blood count and electrolyte changes); and product characteristics, including volumes and cell counts. Collection efficiencies and collection ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-six mononuclear cell collections were performed on 20 pediatric patients: 11 with COBE and 15 with Optia. Adequate mononuclear cell products were successfully collected with a single procedure from all patients except one, with mean calculated mononuclear cell collection efficiency that was significantly higher from Optia collections compared with COBE collections (57.9 ± 4.6% vs 40.3 ± 6.2%, respectively; p = 0.04). CD3-positive yields were comparable on both machines (p = 0.34) with significantly smaller blood volumes processed on Optia. Collected products had larger volumes on Optia. No significant side effects attributed to the procedure were noted. CONCLUSION: Mononuclear cell apheresis using the Optia device in children is more efficient and is as safe as that 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207