Blood Compatibility and Filtration: Characteristics of Newly Developed Polyester Polymer Alloy Membrane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many synthetic polymeric membranes have been widely used for blood purification therapies. Among them polyester polymer alloy (PEPA) membrane shows unique blood compatibility and filtration characteristics. Objective: To evaluate blood compatibility and filtration characteristics of 3 different PEPA membranes, including FLX (PEPA only), FDX (PEPA with polyvinylpyrrolidone, (PVP) as a hydrophilic agent), and FDY (PEPA with PVP) that has larger pore diameter. Methods: Ultrafilters with 3 PEPA membranes (FLX, FDX, FDY, Nikkiso, Tokyo) were compared with those with polysulfone (PS; NK‐PS, Nikkiso, Tokyo) for blood compatibility in vivo. Also, ultrafilters with PEPA, PS, and cellulose triacetate (CTA; FB‐110GA, Nipro, Osaka) membranes were also investigated for filtration characteristics of albumin in aqueous in vitro. Results: FDY, the latest version of the three PEPA, showed excellent small changes in C5a concentration during the treatment right after switching from PS membrane, leaving no significant changes in other biocompatible indices. First 60 min of the time course of s.c. for albumin were shown below taken under aqueous low albumin concentration, i.e., 2.42 × 10−3 kg/dm3. The time‐dependent patterns were totally different from each other in 5 filters. Generally speaking, PS takes a peak value 20–40 min after starting the experiment, depending on the flow conditions. Since PEPA is a hydrophobic material, it showed high s.c. for albumin in FLX (PEPA with no PVP) and never reached plateau. With a hydrophilic agent (PVP), the s.c. greatly reduced in FDX and showed little time‐dependent change. By enlarging the pore diameter in FDY, the s.c. increased in accordance with the enlargement. Conclusion: Newly developed PEPA with PVP has excellent blood compatibility and has unique separation characteristics for albumin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".