<i>Retracted:</i><i>De novo</i> protein synthesis in mature platelets: a consideration for transfusion medicine
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platelet function in thrombosis and haemostasis is reasonably well understood at the molecular level with respect to the proteins involved in cellular structure, signalling networks and platelet interaction with clotting factors and other cells. However, the natural history of these proteins has only recently garnered the attention of platelet researchers. De novo protein synthesis in platelets was discovered 40 years ago; however, it was generally dismissed as merely an interesting minor phenomenon until studies over the past few years renewed interest in this aspect of platelet proteins. It is now accepted that anucleate platelets not only have the potential to synthesize proteins, but this capacity seems to be required to fulfil their function. With translational control as the primary mode of regulation, platelets are able to express biologically relevant gene products in a timely and signal-dependent manner. Platelet protein synthesis during storage of platelet concentrates is a nascent area of research. Protein synthesis does occur, although not for all proteins found in the platelet protein profile. Furthermore, mRNA appears to be well preserved under standard storage conditions. Although its significance is not yet understood, the ability to replace proteins may form a type of cellular repair mechanism during storage. Disruption by inappropriate storage conditions or processes that block protein synthesis such as pathogen reduction technologies may have direct effects on the ability of platelets to synthesize proteins during storage.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
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".