Citrate anticoagulation: Are blood donors donating bone?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An estimated 2.4 million volunteer apheresis blood donation procedures were performed in the United States in 2010, and increases in the proportion of transfused blood products derived from apheresis blood collections have been consistently reported. Anticoagulation is required during apheresis and is achieved with citrate. Donor exposure to citrate causes an acute physiological response to maintain serum mineral homeostasis. Some data are available on the sequelae of this acute response in the days and weeks following exposure, raising questions about bone mineral density in regular apheresis donors. New research is emerging that addresses the potential long-term health outcomes of repeated citrate exposure. This article reviews the acute physiological response to citrate anticoagulation in volunteer blood donors, presents contrasting perspectives on the potential effects of citrate exposure on bone density, and identifies key knowledge gaps in our understanding of long-term health outcomes in apheresis donors. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:459-463, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it