A randomized controlled trial comparing autologous radiolabeled in vivo platelet (PLT) recoveries and survivals of 7‐day‐stored PLT‐rich plasma and buffy coat PLTs from the same subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent review concluded that there was inadequate evidence to show a difference between buffy coat (BC) and platelet (PLT)-rich plasma (PRP) PLT concentrates prepared from whole blood. We hypothesized that 7-day-stored BC-PLTs would have superior autologous recoveries and survivals compared to PRP-PLTs and that both would meet the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria for poststorage viability. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, crossover study design in healthy subjects who provided informed consent. Each participant donated a unit of whole blood on two occasions. In random order, either BC-PLTs or PC-PLTs were prepared after a 20 ± 2 °C overnight hold of the whole blood. PLTs were stored under standard conditions. On Day 7, fresh PLTs were prepared from 43 mL of autologous whole blood. The fresh PLTs paired with either BC-PLTs or PRP-PLTs were alternately labeled with (111) In or (51) Cr and simultaneously reinfused to determine recoveries and survivals. In vitro assays were performed on Days 1 and 7. RESULTS: Fourteen subjects completed the study at two sites. No differences in poststorage PLT viabilities were observed between BC-PLTs and PRP-PLTs; recovery differences averaged 3.7 ± 2.4% (± SE, p = 0.15) and survival differences averaged 0.48 ± 0.56 days (p = 0.41). Neither type of PLTs met the current FDA criteria for either poststorage PLT recoveries or survivals. CONCLUSION: We were unable to demonstrate that single-unit BC-PLTs stored for 7 days have superior poststorage viability compared to PRP-PLTs. Failure to meet the minimum FDA criteria for poststorage PLT viability raises questions regarding the acceptance thresholds of these metrics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".