Generation of reticulated platelets in responseto whole blood donation or plateletpheresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few reports about thrombopoietic responses in whole blood (WB) and platelet-pheresis donors. This study compares the thrombopoietic responses of such donors and their platelet values. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The effect of WB donation or selective platelet loss (plateletpheresis) was evaluated prospectively. WB and platelet donor samples before donation and for 7 days thereafter were assessed for platelet count, mean platelet volume, and platelet reticulocytes. RESULTS: Reticulated platelets appeared in the circulation of plateletpheresis donors by 24 hours. The proportion of reticulated platelets was highest on Day 2, and above-normal levels of reticulated platelets persisted until Day 7. The mean platelet volume was high on Days 2 and 3, which corresponded with the appearance of reticulated platelets. After plateletpheresis, platelet counts were higher than could be accounted for by new platelets, which suggested the release of sequestered platelets. WB donors manifested no changes in platelet counts but had a peak of circulating platelet reticulocytes 2 days after the donation. CONCLUSION: The thrombopoietic peak in WB and plateletpheresis donors occurs 2 days after donation, and the response level is related to the amount of platelets lost. The impact of platelet loss on the number of circulating platelets is modulated by the release of platelets from the spleen.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".