Irradiation of blood components in combating transfusion associated graft versus host disease (TA- GvHD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irradiation of cellular blood components is a specialized procedure performed to reduce one of the unusual but most serious adverse effects of transfusion therapy or transplantation, that is, transfusion-associated graft- versus-host disease (TA-GvHD). It is done using either gamma-rays or X-rays derived from radioactive sources. Various developed countries such as Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Japan follow policies and guidelines for practicing transfusion of irradiated cellular blood components. In India, there are recommendations for the clinical use of irradiated blood components in indicated recipients. However, there is a lack of awareness about this specialized product, availability, usage, and its clinical importance. Furthermore, there are a few pros and cons of irradiating the blood components that need to be discussed. Most of the blood transfusion services departments or blood banks are not having in-house facilities of irradiation due to various reasons. There is a paucity of data published in literature based on clinical trials and evidences for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease by irradiation, and it mostly relies on case reports, hemovigilance data, and laboratory methods aiming to inactivate or eliminate lymphocytes in the transfused components. With this review article, we have made an attempt to describe the role of irradiation of blood components and its uses in the prevention of TA-GvHD, the different types of irradiators and methods of irradiation, dosimetry techniques, and the biochemical effect of irradiation on blood components. It will be helpful for peer clinicians to scrutinize the potential candidates for using irradiated blood components, considering its potential benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".