A Prospective Comparison of the Platelet Sequestration Ability of Three Autotransfusion Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although current autotransfusion devices have platelet sequestration capabilities, each has a unique technology to achieve the final platelet product. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality and quantity of platelets sequestered by three different autotransfusion devices. The three commercially available autotransfusion devices evaluated were Fresenius C.A.T.S (closed spiral chamber), Cobe BRAT 2 (Baylor bowl), and Haemonetic Cell Saver 5 (Latham bowl). Platelet sequestration was preformed in the automatic mode following the manufacturer's recommended sequestration protocols. The total number of platelets sequestered, percent recovery, and percent platelet function were assessed. Each device behaved similarly. There was a 2- to 3-fold increase in platelet count compared with baseline with only approximately 50-60% recovery, whereas there was approximately a 10% decrease in platelet function after processing compared with baseline. No statistical difference was noted in platelet function between the respective machines. However, there was a significant loss of platelet function observed with the actual process regardless of autotransfusion device used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".