Exposure of cryopreserved red cell concentrates to real‐world transient warming events has a negligible impact on quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Red cell concentrates (RCCs) may be cryopreserved at Canadian Blood Services (CBS) for up to 10 years; however, inadvertent warming of these units over the prescribed storage temperature (≤ -65°C) may occur. These units may be discarded from inventory to avoid potential adverse transfusion outcomes. This study aimed to assess the quality of RCCs that experienced unintentional transient warming events (TWEs) related to freezer failures. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty cryopreserved RCCs with known TWEs were selected for this study and classified into three different experimental groups (Event 1 (n = 5) TWE > -65°C for 34 min; Event 2 (n = 23) TWE > -65°C for 48 h; and both Event 1 and Event 2 (n = 2) TWE > -65°C for 34 min and 48 h). Ten additional RCCs with no known TWEs, cryopreserved over the same period, were selected as controls. Thawed RCCs were deglycerolized using the Haemonetics ACP 215, and in vitro quality was assessed throughout hypothermic storage. RESULTS: RCCs from the control and all three experimental groups met the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) guidelines for hematocrit, total hemoglobin, and hemolysis at expiry. RCCs experiencing a singular TWE had similar in vitro quality to control RCCs. DISCUSSION: This study's findings revealed that single exposures to specific documented TWEs did not significantly impact the quality of RCCs post-deglycerolization. While units should still be assessed on a case-by-case basis upon TWE, our work provides the first-ever evidence that supports a broader policy of unit retention by blood centers.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".