Survey of blood centre readiness regarding removal of <scp>DEHP</scp> from blood bag sets: The <scp>BEST</scp> Collaborative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) must be removed from blood bag sets in Europe by 27 May 2025. DEHP is known to interact with the red blood cell (RBC) membrane, resulting in reduced haemolysis and thus prolonging shelf-life. Current non-DEHP alternatives result in increased haemolysis requiring reconsideration of the RBC shelf-life. Although the immediate impact of eliminating DEHP is to the European community, the non-DEHP movement could affect blood bag set availability globally. The purpose of this survey is to understand blood centre readiness regarding the transition to non-DEHP blood collection and storage systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 24-question on-line survey was completed by members of the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion Collaborative research network. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 16 blood collection or processing institutions. A majority of respondents (12/16) indicated that both shelf-life and haemolysis were equally important in selecting non-DEHP blood bag sets. Six respondents would accept a lower RBC product shelf-life compared to current practice. Respondents were not clear on the best non-DEHP vinyl material or RBC storage solution. Three European blood centres indicated they have developed non-DEHP transition plans. One challenge identified regarding the transition to non-DEHP is the extensive validation testing that will be required. CONCLUSION: Blood centres in Europe are concerned with meeting the sunset date for DEHP, considering that limited non-DEHP blood bag and RBC storage solutions are currently available. Banning DEHP in Europe, which may have global ramifications, represents a major challenge not yet fully understood by the transfusion medicine community.
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 | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".