Impact of repeated centrifugation prior to glycerolization on the quality of cryopreserved red blood cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inadequate compaction of red blood cells (RBC) prior to glycerolization using the ACP® 215 system may lead to the rejection of cryopreserved units, a situation that poses particular challenges when dealing with rare phenotypes. While repeating the centrifugation step could correct this issue, no data currently exist regarding its impact on RBC quality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Pools of 3 ABO-isogroup red cell concentrates (RCC) were divided into three units and subjected to one (standard), two, or three centrifugations before glycerolization using the Valeri method. After storage at -80°C, units were thawed, deglycerolized, and stored for 7 days at 2-6°C in additive solution AS-3. Hemolysis, hematocrit, hemoglobin content, recovery, volume, and sterility were evaluated post-deglycerolization. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in hemolysis, hematocrit, or hemoglobin content between single, double, or triple centrifugation groups. All values were within quality thresholds. While recovery and final volume showed a downward trend after a third centrifugation, the differences were not statistically significant for recovery, and volume remained operationally acceptable. CONCLUSION: Repeating the initial centrifugation step up to two times before glycerolization does not adversely affect the quality of cryopreserved RBCs processed with the ACP® 215. These findings support updating standard operating procedures to reduce unnecessary rejection of rare donor units due to initial centrifugation issues.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".