Similar donors—similar blood?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) storage lesions have been suggested as contributing factors to suboptimal clinical outcomes. While undesirable effects of storage are well documented, their clinical relevance is still debated. Focus on storage time as the sole determinant of RBC quality ignores the variability in cell properties that may depend on factors other than age. Mechanical fragility (MF) aggregately reflects many storage-related functional and structural changes. This study evaluates interdonor versus intradonor variability, throughout storage, of both MF and autohemolysis (AH). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirteen uniformly manufactured RBC units were collected initially as whole blood from nonsmoking, group A+, male Caucasian research donors. Mechanical stress was applied using a bead mill with oscillation at 50 Hz over durations varying from 0.5 to 60 minutes. MF profiles were described in terms of percent hemolysis after stresses of specified durations. Two months later, 11 of the 13 donors returned and assays were performed using the same protocol to allow comparison of intradonor versus interdonor variation. RESULTS: At 5 days postcollection, RBC MF profiles exhibited marked interdonor variability (up to twofold) overall. Both autolysis and MF across all units increased during storage-with rates of these increases varying by up to 10-fold for certain MF variables. Especially high AH and MF were observed for an outlier donor (with p < 0.05), for whom follow-up revealed previously undisclosed hereditary hypertriglyceridemia (levels exceeding approx. 1000 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: RBCs, even from similar donors, vary significantly in levels and changes of both AH and MF, the clinical significance of which must still be ascertained. While further study is needed, donors with severe hypertriglyceridemia may not be appropriate as blood donors due to the unacceptable level of hemolysis observed during storage of our affected study subject.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".