Comparison of biocompatibility in polysulfone dialysis membranes with different sterilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Polysulfone (PSf) membrane has been widely used for hemodialysis. A few studies have been reported in which a method of sterilization may affect biocompatibility. In this study, the comparison was made between two PSf membranes in order to evaluate the effect of sterilization from the biocompatibility point of view. METHODS: We investigated the biocompatibility of the following two dialyzers, that is, APS-11SA (Asahi Kasei medical Co., Tokyo, Japan), sterilized by gamma-ray irradiation, and RENAK PS-1.0 (Kawasumi laboratories, Tokyo, Japan), sterilized by autoclave. Heparin of 40 units/mL was put in a syringe, and test blood was collected from healthy volunteers. Then, the dialyzer and blood circuit were filled with the test blood. Subsequently, the blood was circulated by a roller pump at the rate of 200 mL/min. We measured the platelet counts, CD41 and CD42b platelet surface markers, beta-thromboglobulin (beta-TG) and platelet factor 4 (PF4) at 30, 120, and 240 minutes, respectively. FINDINGS: The platelet counts at 30, 120, and 240 minutes decreased significantly from the initiation of blood circulation in both dialyzers. The average beta-TG and PF4 increased from 61.3 ± 22.1 and 17.0 ± 6.4 ng/mL to 680.7 ± 217.1 and 550.7 ± 116.7 ng/mL with APS-11SA and to 454.3 ± 85.6 and 402.0 ± 58.0 ng/mL with RENAK PS-1.0, respectively. The average expression of CD41 and CD42b in APS-11SA and RENAK PS-1.0 was similar. DISCUSSION: There are some reports that the gamma-ray irradiation changes the membrane structure of the PSf membrane, crosslinking the polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), a hydrophilic agent, on to the membrane. On the other hand, excess amount of PVP may have been eluted during the rinsing procedure in RENAK PS-1.0 because it was sterilized with autoclave. Because both these factors influenced on our results, APS-11SA and RENAK PS-1.0 dialyzers showed excellent blood compatibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".