Compatibility Assessment of Closed-system Device "PhaSeal SOLUS" and Antineoplastic-agent Vials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of closed systems is recommended to prevent occupational exposure to anti-cancer agents during preparation.The PhaSeal closed-system consists of an“Injector”and a“Protector”.Named“SOLUS”,the Protector can be used with reconstitution drug vials as well as drug solution vials.We therefore studied the compatibility of SOLUS and 41 kinds of reconstitution drug,as well as durability.After attaching SOLUS to the vials,needle insertion was performed 10 times by the Injector.Thereafter,they were injected with a mixture of distilled water and sodium fluorescein (FL-Dw) under pressurization.Immediately afterwards,after 1 hour and 24 hours,the vials were examined under UV light to determine whether there was any liquid leakage following injection of FL-Dw,and then the same test was performed without pressurization.Next,“Protector P 21”or SOLUS was attached to the vials and FL-Dw was injected into them.Needle insertion was then performed 30 times under both pressurized and unpressurized conditions and vials were examined under UV.The surface or membrane of SOLUS was determined to be fluorescent for 10 kinds of vial tested.Five types of vial were excluded because their diameter did not match the apparatus.Under unpressurized conditions,the apparatus could be used safely for needle insertion by P 21 or SOLUS up to 30 times.However,when vials required pressurization,inserting the needle 5 times caused leakage.Twenty-six kinds of reconstitution drug vial could be used safely with SOLUS.However,there is still the possibility of exposure to anti-cancer drugs due to leakage and SOLUS should therefore be operated carefully.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".