MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376154655 · doi:10.46889/jrmbr.2023.4201

Comparison of Resuspension Techniques on the Cellular and Cytokine Characteristics of Platelet Rich Plasma: A Pilot Study

2023· article· en· W4376154655 on OpenAlexaff
Josh Kutcher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlatelet-rich plasmaPlatelet-derived growth factor receptorSuspension (topology)Growth factorMedicinePlatelet lysatePlateletImmunologyInternal medicineBiomedical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is increasingly used for a variety of musculoskeletal ailments such as tendinopathy and arthritis. There are numerous protocols for preparing PRP, but to our knowledge there have been no studies to assess the impact that re-suspension techniques may have on the cellular characteristics and growth factor expression of the final PRP product. Hypothesis: The type of re-suspension technique used will alter the platelet characteristics and growth factor expression of PRP. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Blood was collected from nine healthy volunteer donors between ages 26-60. Informed consent and ethics approval was obtained. A double spin technique was used resulting in a concentrated PRP product. Three commonly employed re-suspension techniques were utilized to re-suspend the final PRP product and the cellular characteristics and growth factor expression were analyzed using a reproducible protocol. This study was completed over a single day. Results: All three re-suspension techniques resulted in a 4.6-5.2-fold increase in platelet concentration with no difference between groups (p=0.31). This is consistent with the recommended PRP concentration in published literature. Each re-suspension technique also demonstrated in increase in concentration of PDGF and VEGF with no difference between groups (p=0.81 and p=0.97). Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that the re-suspension techniques may be equivalent and do not result in altered cellular or growth factor characteristics within the study limitations. Clinical Relevance: The mixing method can be labor and time intensive and prolong patient wait times. The vortex method can shorten the overall patient encounter time while still providing an optimal PRP product. Previously, there were only theoretical assumptions regarding how the re-suspension techniques may modify PRP characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207