Evaluation of overnight hold of whole blood at room temperature before component processing: effect of red blood cell (RBC) additive solutions on in vitro RBC measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whole blood (WB) can be held at room temperature (18-25°C) up to 8 hours after collection; thereafter the unit must be refrigerated, rendering it unsuitable for platelet (PLT) production. Overnight hold at room temperature before processing has logistic advantages, and we evaluated this process in an international multicenter study for both buffy coat (BC)- and PLT-rich plasma (PRP)-based blood components and compared three red blood cell (RBC) additive solutions (ASs) for their ability to offset effects of overnight hold. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Nine centers participated; seven used the BC method, and two used the PRP method. Four WB units were pooled and split; 1 unit was processed less than 8 hours from collection (Group A), and the other three (Groups B, C, and D) were held at room temperature and processed after 24 to 26 hours. RBCs in Groups A and B were resuspended in saline-adenine-glucose-mannitol, Group C in phosphate-adenine-guanosine-glucose-saline-mannitol, and Group D in ErythroSol-4 RBCs were stored at 2 to 6°C for 49 days. RESULTS: RBCs from overnight-held WB had lower 2,3-diphosphoglycerate (2,3-DPG) and higher adenosine triphosphate (ATP). At the end of storage there were no differences between groups, apart from a slightly higher hemolysis in Group B. ErythroSol-4 showed a slightly higher initial ATP and 2,3-DPG content, but at the end of storage no differences were found. CONCLUSION: Overnight hold of WB before processing has no lasting deleterious effects on in vitro quality of subsequently prepared components. The use of different RBC ASs did not appear to offer significant advantages in terms of RBC quality at the end, regardless of the processing method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".