Cryopreserved hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells stability program‐development, current status and recommendations: A brief report from the AABB‐ISCT joint working group cellular therapy product stability project team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The AABB-ISCT Joint Working Group Stability Project Team (SPT) was assigned to roadmap a path toward standardization of cryopreserved hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell (HSPC) stability programs. HSPC stability encompasses a broad scope of conditions including non-frozen ("fresh") and cryopreserved cell products, and varying methods for storage, thaw, and administration. This report assessed current practices and focused solely on cryopreserved HSPC cell therapy products to establish preliminary recommendations for a stability program roadmap. METHODS: A survey was prepared by the SPT and distributed to ISCT and AABB members. Survey results were summarized and recommendations were outlined based on the responses from the survey. This report highlights current practices for cryopreserved HSPC stability programs, including additional considerations and recommendations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Eighty-two (82) centers worldwide participated in the survey. Survey results indicate variability across programs. HSPC stability depends on multiple factors within the processing facility (e.g., cryopreservation techniques, reagents used, and storage temperature) and independent variables (e.g., donor-related factors and starting material variability). While retention of hematopoietic engraftment potential is the primary goal for cryopreserved HSPC stability, engraftment results should not be used as the sole metric for stability programs. Based on the survey results, the SPT provides recommendations for consideration. CONCLUSIONS: The SPT recommendations for best practices are not intended to replace existing standards. The survey results emphasize the need for the community to optimize best practices and consider initiating collaborative projects to improve the standardization of cryopreserved HSPC stability programs for cell therapy products.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".