Effect of modern infusion pumps on <scp>RBC</scp> quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanical stress on red blood cells is associated with using infusion pumps for blood administration. Current standards in North America leave it to healthcare facilities to consult with manufacturers about infusion pump safety for transfusion; studies on various pumps and red blood cell (RBC) conditions are scarce. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: RBC units were pumped through four infusion pumps on d22 (22 days postcollection), d40, d28 after gamma irradiation on d14 (I14d28), and d22 after irradiation on d21 (I21d22). For each experiment, three units were pooled and split among four bags. Samples were collected at gravity and after pumping at clinical nonemergency rates. Hemolysis %, microvesicles, potassium, lactate dehydrogenase, mechanical fragility index levels, and morphology evaluations were performed (n = 5-6). RESULTS: Hemolysis levels of Piston and Linear Peristaltic pump samples were not different from hemolysis of corresponding gravity samples. Peristaltic samples had significantly higher hemolysis compared to gravity, and other pumps, however, maximum mean difference was limited to 0.05%. Pumping at 50 mL/h resulted in the highest hemolysis level. Change in hemolysis % due to pumping was significantly higher in d40 and I21d22 units. No combination of pumps and RBCs conditions led to hemolysis >0.8%. Besides hemolysis, lactate dehydrogenase release was the only marker that demonstrated some differences between infusions via pump versus gravity. CONCLUSION: The pump design affects the degree of hemolysis. However, for all tested pumps and RBC conditions, this increase was minimal. Hemolysis measurement on d40 and I21d22 at 50 mL/h were concluded to be appropriate parameters for pump evaluation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".