Characterization of blood components prepared from whole‐blood donations after a 24‐hour hold with the platelet‐rich plasma method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The preparation of platelet (PLT) concentrates (PCs) from PLT-rich plasma (PRP) requires that whole blood (WB) be processed within 8 hours of collection. Increasing WB storage time to 24 hours would be logistically attractive. This study compares the in vitro quality of blood components prepared from WB stored for 8 and 24 hours at room temperature before processing with the PRP method. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: WB units were collected from ABO-matched blood donors. To reduce individual variations, paired donations were drawn in parallel, pooled, and split back in the collection bag. One unit was held for 6 to 8 hours and the other for 22 to 24 hours at 20 to 24 degrees C. Prestorage leukoreduced components were prepared with the PRP as intermediate product and analyzed during storage. RESULTS: RBC units prepared after an 8- or 24-hour hold were comparable in terms of hemolysis, sodium, pH, and ATP levels. RBC 2,3- diphosphoglycerate (2,3-DPG) was significantly lower in RBCs prepared from 24-hour hold donations immediately after processing but not after 20 days of storage. Residual white blood cells were approximately fivefold higher (p < 0.05) in 24-hour RBC units. For PCs, measurements for glucose, ATP, lactate, pH, extent of shape change, hypotonic shock response, and CD62p activation were similar. No differences were observed in the von Willebrand factor, factor (F)V, FVIII, and fibrinogen content of fresh-frozen plasma. CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in FVIII and RBC 2,3-DPG can be acceptable as a compromise to improve blood component logistics, but leukoreduction efficiency must be improved before considering the adoption of an overnight storage of WB before PRP processing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".