MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393005115 · doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2024-eahp.95

3PC-038 Autologous serum eye drops preparation: approach to the filtration step impact on the concentration of active molecules

2024· article· en· W4393005115 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pauline Moncassin, M. Colin, E Bernikier, Jérémy Jost, Sébastien Hantz, M. Rocher, PA Faye, V. Ratsimbazafy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer Research
KeywordsFiltration (mathematics)ChromatographySize-exclusion chromatographyChemistryPorosityBiochemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Importance Autologous serum eye drops (ASEDs) are pharmaceutical preparations used in severe dry eye disease. Sterility is a specification for eye drops, which can be obtained by filtration. Any molecule with a mean diameter greater than the filter porosity is then retained. EGF (Epidermal Growth Factor) is one of the active molecules (AMs) in ASEDs. With an intermediate molecular mass (MM) (180 kDa), its investigation makes possible to predict the impact of filtration on the concentration of other molecules. Aim and Objectives To evaluate the impact of this sterilisation method on AM by measuring EGF concentrations before/after filtration of collected sera. Material and Methods Four 4 mL tubes of human serum (P1-P4) were used, all from a hospital biological collection. Each serum underwent the following operations: zero filtration, clarifying filtration (CF, at 0.45 µm porosity) and sterilising filtration (SF, at 0.20 µm). The assay was performed in duplicate using the ELISA technique (Quantikine® Human EGF Immunoassay kit, R&D System, USA). The impact of filtration is considered significant if the relative difference in concentrations after the process exceeds 7.5%. Results The EGF concentration (pg/mL) in each unfiltered serum represents the maximum concentration (100%), allowing the impact of filtrations to be expressed as relative percentages of this maximum. Under CF, these percentages were respectively, for P1 to P4: 96.2%, 97.2%, 92.8% and 97.1%, representing a reduction in concentrations between 2.8% and 7.2%. Under SF, the percentages were: 94.8%, 93.4%, 91.1% and 95.9% respectively, representing a reduction of 4.1% to 8.9%. Conclusion and Relevance As expected, EGF concentrations decrease after filtration, especially when the porosity of the filter used is low. Moreover, the significance threshold is reached for P3 under SF. We may suppose that smaller AMs (ie IGF-1, MM 7.6 kDa; TGF-β1, MM 25 kDa) will be less retained. For larger AMs such as fibronectin (MM around 450kDa), the decrease in concentration is likely to have an impact on the ASEDs efficacy, justifying a more specific study. Other methods of ensuring the microbiological safety of ASEDs should probably also be considered. References and/or Acknowledgements Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune DisordersFrench-language works237,207