An objective flow cytometry method to rapidly determine cord blood potency in cryopreserved units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cord blood banks have to determine the regenerative potential of cord blood units (CBUs) on a representative sample of the cryopreserved product before release to the transplant center. Potency can be measured by using a colony-forming unit (CFU) method, which delays the release of CBU by 7 to 14 days. To accelerate CBU qualification, we have developed a rapid method to assess the response of CD34 cells to interleukin (IL)-3. Flow cytometry was used to measure IL-3-induced STAT5 phosphorylation within CD34-cells. This IL-3 test was compared to the CFU method, as well as the aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) enzyme-based assay. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: cells, and IL-3-responsive CD34+ cells. Extreme and mild warming event scenarios were simulated on CBUs and used as poor-quality samples. Segments, tubes, and bags from five CBUs were compared for their potency using IL-3 and CFU methods. RESULTS: The IL-3 test was accurate in identifying the samples handled following standard operating procedures and those subjected to extreme warming events. Based on these results, a threshold of 55% of IL-3-responsive CD34 cells was established to identify good-quality samples. The IL-3 test was also the most sensitive to detect samples subjected to milder warming events. CONCLUSIONS: Our new method for determining CBU functionality is rapid, unbiased, and robust. The IL-3 test described herein fulfills the requirements for validation, and we intend to implement this method in our cord blood bank facility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".