Red blood cell replacement, or nanobiotherapeutics with enhanced red blood cell functions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why is this important? Under normal circumstances, donor blood is the best replacement for blood. However, there are exceptions: During natural epidemics (e.g., HIV, Ebola, etc.) or man-made epidemics (terrorism, war, etc.), there is a risk of donor blood being contaminated, and donors being disqualified because they have contracted disease. Unlike red blood cells (RBCs), blood substitutes can be sterilized to remove infective agents. Heart attack and stroke are usually caused by obstruction of arterial blood vessels. Unlike RBCs, which are particulate, blood substitutes are in the form of a solution that can perfuse through obstructed vessels with greater ease to reach the heart and brain, as has been demonstrated in animal studies. Severe blood loss from injuries sustained during accidents, disasters, or war may require urgent blood transfusion that cannot wait for transportation to the hospital for blood group testing. Unlike RBCs, blood substitutes do not have specific blood groups, and can be administered on the spot. RBCs have to be stored under refrigeration for up to 42 days, and are thus difficult to transport and store in times of disaster and at the battlefront. Blood substitutes can be stored at room temperature for more than 1 year, compared to the RBC shelf life of 1 day, at room temperature. In cases of very severe hemorrhagic shock, there is usually a safety window of 60 min for blood replacement, beyond which there could be problems related to irreversible shock. Animal studies show that a particular type of blood substitute, with enhanced RBC enzymes, may be able to prolong the duration of the safety window.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".