Determining the Volume of Additive Solution and Residual Plasma in Whole Blood Filtered and Buffy Coat Processed Red Cell Concentrates
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
BACKGROUND: Residual plasma in transfused red cell concentrates (RCCs) has been associated with adverse transfusion outcomes. Despite this, there is no consensus on the standard procedure for measuring residual plasma volume. METHODS: The volumes of residual plasma and additive solution were measured in RCCs processed using two separation methods: whole blood filtration (WBF) and buffy coat (BC)/RCC filtration. The concentration of mannitol and albumin in RCC components was measured using colorimetric assays. Mannitol concentration was used to calculate additive solution volume. Residual plasma volume was calculated using two methods. RESULTS: Calculated RCC supernatant volumes were much lower in BC-processed components compared to WBF-processed components (BC = 97 ± 6 ml, WBF = 109 ± 4 ml; p < 0.05). Calculated additive solution volumes were greater in WBF- than in BC-processed components (BC = 81 ± 4 ml, WBF = 105 ± 2 ml; p < 0.05). Absolute residual plasma volume varied significantly based on the calculation method used. CONCLUSION: Disparity between plasma volume calculation methods was observed. Efforts should be made to standardize residual plasma volume measurement methods in order to accurately assess the impact of residual plasma on transfusion outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it