Comparison of bacterial attachment to platelet bags with and without preconditioning with plasma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Canadian Blood Services produces apheresis and buffy coat pooled platelet concentrates (PCs) stored in bags produced by two different manufacturers (A and B, respectively), both made of polyvinyl chloride-butyryl trihexyl citrate. This study was aimed at comparing Staphylococcus epidermidis adhesion to the inner surface of both bag types in the presence or absence of plasma factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sets (N = 2-6) of bags type A and B were left non-coated (control) or preconditioned with platelet-rich, platelet-poor or defibrinated plasma (PRP, PPP and DefibPPP, respectively). Each bag was inoculated with a 200-ml S. epidermidis culture adjusted to 0·5 colony-forming units/ml. Bags were incubated under platelet storage conditions for 7 days. After culture removal, bacteria attached to the plastic surface were either dislodged by sonication for bacterial quantification or examined in situ by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: Higher bacterial adhesion was observed to preconditioned PC bags than control containers for both bag types (P < 0·0001). Bacterial attachment to preconditioned bags was confirmed by SEM. Bacteria adhered equally to both types of containers in the presence of PRP, PPP and DefibPPP residues (P > 0·05). By contrast, a significant increase in bacterial adherence was observed to type A bags compared with type B bags in the absence of plasma (P < 0·05) [Correction added on 16 June 2017, after first online publication: this sentence has been corrected]. CONCLUSION: The ability of S. epidermidis to adhere to preconditioned platelet collection bags depends on the presence of plasma factors. Future efforts should be focused on reducing plasma proteins' attachment to platelet storage containers to decrease subsequent bacterial adhesion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".