Shipment of Glycerolized RBC Segments for Red Cell Concentrate Compatibility Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Red cell concentrate (RCC) cryopreservation allows for long-term storage of RCCs with rare phenotypes. Currently, tubing segments are not produced for these frozen units. Pre-transfusion compatibility testing therefore requires thawing and deglycerolization of the whole unit. A study was conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of using segments for compatibility testing, including circumstances where segments would require shipment to a reference laboratory. Study Design and Methods: RCCs produced using the red cell filtration method from citrate-phosphate-dextrose whole blood collections were glycerolized (40%) at day 21 post-collection and segments were generated prior to freezing. Room temperature (RT, 18°C–20°C) or water bath (WB, 37°C) thawing of segments was performed prior to storage at RT or at refrigerated temperatures (cold, 1°C –6°C) for 0, 24, 48, or 72 hours followed by deglycerolization and hemolysis testing. Additional segments were thawed and shipped in temperature-controlled containers at either RT or 1°C –10°C for antibody screening. Results: Hemolysis and RBC recovery results did not show significant differences over the storage period or between thawing and storage conditions. RBC recovery ranged from 46% to 64%. Hemoglobin (Hb) recovery ranged from 56% to 96%; for RT-thawed segments, recovery was significantly higher at 24 hours and lower at 72 hours for RT storage compared with cold storage. WB-thawed, cold-stored segments had higher Hb recoveries at 48 hours. Phenotype assessment was successful for all segments regardless of thawing method or shipping condition. Discussion: The shipment of thawed segments containing glycerolized red cells is feasible for the purpose of conducting pretransfusion phenotype evaluations or pretransfusion compatibility checks.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".