Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Platelet concentrates may be prepared from whole blood or by plateletpheresis. Currently, the non-evidence-based preponderance of apheresis units in the United States and the 50: 50 ratio in Europe may not optimize the gifts of whole-blood donors or minimize healthcare costs. Post-storage pooled, whole-blood-derived platelets, on the other hand, do not provide the convenience of or an equivalent level of safety as apheresis platelets. RECENT FINDINGS: Some data suggest that different methods of manufacture of whole-blood-derived platelets (platelet-rich plasma or buffy coat intermediate steps) result in differing degrees of platelet activation, which may impact on the quality of stored concentrates. Recent studies have observed superior radiolabel recovery and post-transfusion increments for platelets derived from apheresis compared with platelet-rich plasma whole-blood-derived platelets. A pre-storage pooling system for whole-blood-derived platelets has just been licensed in the USA, and may eventually combine the benefits of apheresis-derived and whole-blood-derived platelets. The advantages of the European method of manufacture of buffy coat whole-blood-derived platelet concentrate have convinced the Canadian Blood Services to abandon platelet-rich-plasma-derived concentrates. SUMMARY: We present a literature-based review of the relative merits of apheresis-derived and whole-blood-derived platelets. Additional studies are needed in order to define the optimal proportion of the platelet supply from apheresis collections and the choice of whole-blood-derived production method for US blood providers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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".