Assessing the effectiveness of whole blood–derived platelets stored as a pool: a randomized block noninferiority trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prestorage pooling of whole blood-derived platelets (PLTs) would simplify bacterial detection. This study evaluated the in vivo effect of the prestorage pooling of PLTs stored for up to 5 days, by assessing the corrected count increment (CCI) 18 to 24 hours after transfusion of the product. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized block noninferiority design was used. Eligible patients had chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia and were considered likely to need at least six PLT transfusions. For every block of two transfusion events, one consisted of PLTs stored individually and then pooled before transfusion, and the other was a product pooled before storage. The primary outcome was categorized as a successful (>4.5) or unsuccessful (<or=4.5) 18- to 24-hour posttransfusion CCI analyzed with a matched pair score test. A mixed-effect linear model estimated the mean difference in CCI between the two types of storage. RESULTS: Twenty-three eligible patients received a total of 189 PLT transfusions. The median number of PLT transfusions was 7 (range, 0-27). Eighty-five complete transfusion pairs were used in the primary analysis. The proportions of transfusions leading to a CCI of greater than 4.5 was identical for both routine and PLTs pooled before storage (45/85=52.9%; relative risk, 1.00; lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83). The estimate of the mean difference in CCI between pooled and routine storage (pooled-routine) was -0.45 (95% CI, -2.23 to 1.33; p=0.63). CONCLUSION: These results provide evidence that storage of PLTs as a pool for up to 5 days results in posttransfusion CCIs that are not inferior to PLTs stored individually.
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 | 0.003 | 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".