Concurrent measurement of the survival of two populations of rabbit platelets labeled with either two PKH lipophilic dyes or two concentrations of biotin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To avoid radioisotopic labeling and permit comparison of the survival of two platelet populations concurrently in one animal, we compared simultaneous recoveries and survival times of homologous rabbit platelets labeled in vitro with the lipophilic dyes PKH26 (red fluorescing) and PKH67 (green fluorescing) and with two levels of biotin (low, 1 microg/ml; high, 10 microg/ml). METHODS: Blood samples were drawn up to 96 h postinfusion and analyzed by flow cytometry. Biotin-labeled samples were incubated with phycoerythrin-streptavidin before analysis. RESULTS: Recovery of PKH26-labeled platelets at 1 h was lower (37.5%) than that of PKH67-labeled platelets (47.3%; P < 0.001). Platelet survival times were 62.4 and 61.9 h. Recoveries at 1 h of platelets labeled with two levels of biotin were similar (86.6% and 84.6%) and greater than those of PKH-labeled platelets (P < 0.001). Survival of platelets labeled with biotin did not differ (low, 83.3 h; high, 85.2 h) and was longer than for PKH-labeled platelets (P < 0.01). Labeling methods did not activate platelets (measured by P-selectin expression), nor did they affect platelet responses to adenosine diphosphate (ADP), collagen, or thrombin. CONCLUSIONS: Labeling with two levels of biotin is superior to labeling with PKH dyes, and is useful for measuring concurrently the survival of two differing platelet populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".