Adsorption of proteins from infant and adult plasma to biomaterial surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hemostatic mechanism of the newborn is immature. In general, the clotting times in screening tests are prolonged, the coagulation factors are low, and the coagulation inhibitors (with the exception of alpha-2-macroglobulin) are low. Recognizing that many of the proteins present in infant plasma are at low levels, it is of interest to determine if, following exposure to artificial surfaces, the profile of adsorbed proteins is different for infant versus adult plasma. The question of whether differences in protein profiles could lead to differences in thromboembolic episodes associated with the use of central venous catheters (or other blood-contacting devices) in infant versus adult subjects also is relevant. To address these issues, the adsorption of proteins from pooled infant plasma and pooled normal adult plasma to three different polymer surfaces (polyvinyl chloride, PVC; polymethyl methacrylate, PMMA; and polyethylene oxide-modified polyurethane, PEO-PU) was studied using SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting techniques. The total amount of protein adsorbed to each surface also was determined. It was found that the PMMA and PVC surfaces adsorbed considerably more protein than the PEO-PU surface. Furthermore, the amount of protein adsorbed to the PMMA and PVC surfaces from infant plasma was significantly less than that adsorbed from adult plasma. No such difference was seen for the protein-repellent PEO-PU surface. The immunoblot responses of proteins bound to the PMMA and PVC surfaces from infant plasma were, in general, weaker than those bound from adult plasma. It is likely that these differences were due to decreased protein levels in infant plasma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".