Platelet concentrates from fresh or overnight‐stored blood, an international study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whole blood and also buffy coats (BCs) can be held for a few hours or overnight before processing into blood components or platelet concentrates (PCs). Individual studies have reported a range of outcomes regarding in vitro variables for PCs prepared from fresh and stored whole blood. In this multicenter study, effects of storage of whole blood or BCs on the in vitro quality of PCs were studied. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The leukoreduced BC PCs were prepared from fresh BCs (2-8 hr after collection; fresh/fresh), from BCs at 20 to 24 hours after collection (fresh/stored), or from BCs prepared from whole blood stored for 20 to 24 hours (stored/fresh). PCs were stored on a flat-bed shaker at 20 to 24°C for 7 days. PCs were tested on Days 0 (only fresh/fresh), 1, 5, and 7 for in vitro quality. There were six participating centers that tested all three conditions with n = 6 per condition. RESULTS: In comparison to fresh/stored and stored/fresh PCs, fresh/fresh PCs exhibited a lower platelet (PLT) count (Day 1-220 × 10(9) ± 70 × 10(9) vs. 324 × 10(9) ± 50 × 10(9) and 368 × 10(9) ± 56 × 10(9) PLTs/PC), lactate, pCO(2), and hypotonic shock response (HSR; Days 5 and 7; Day 7-50 ± 13% vs. 57 ± 12 and 63 ± 11%) and a higher pH, glucose, pO(2), and CD62P expression (than stored/fresh PCs only; Day 7-33 ± 10% vs. 28 ± 12 and 24 ± 11%; p < 0.05). No differences were observed for volume, swirling effect, white blood cell count, annexin V binding, or aggregation between these conditions. CONCLUSION: Based on PLT count, HSR, and PLT activation, PCs are best prepared after 20 to 24 hours hold of the whole blood or BCs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".