MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417290095 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.11.25341805

Monitoring Red Blood Cell Chimerism with Flow Cytometry

2025· preprint· W4417290095 on OpenAlexafffund
C Ip, F. Xiu, Donna A. Wall

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsABO blood group systemFlow cytometryRed blood cellAntibodyMonoclonal antibodyBlood cellHaematopoiesisTitrationRed Cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Monitoring the change of cell populations within patients after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is crucial for determining the success of treatment. With current studies largely focused on determining mixed chimerism of nucleated cells, mixed chimerism for non-nucleated red blood cell (RBC) populations was rarely studied. In this study, based on the differences between donor and recipient ABO blood group surface markers and using commercially available mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for anti-A 1 and anti-glycophorin A (GlyA), a flow cytometry (FCM) based assay was tested to monitor RBC chimerism for post-HSCT patients with combinations A 1 /O, A 1 B/O, A 1 /B, and A 1 B/B blood group difference. Titration curves of mixed blood type combinations with 10% margins were made. These titration curves had a consistent R 2 value > 0.99 and a standard deviation (SD) value < 5%. This suggests that the proposed assay was valid, precise, and reliable. Furthermore, a patient sample with recipient A and donor O mixed blood type was tested and showed that the proposed assay was accurate. Since anti-A 2 and anti-B mAbs were not tested, next steps would be testing these antibodies such that the assay can monitor post-HSCT patients with combinations A 2 /O, A 2 B/O, A 2 /B, A 2 B/B, AB/B, and B/O blood type difference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207