A randomized controlled pilot study of VO<sub>2</sub> max testing: a potential model for measuring relative in vivo efficacy of different red blood cell products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Randomized trials, for example, RECESS, comparing “young” (median, 7‐day) versus “middle‐aged” (median, 28‐day) red blood cells (RBCs), showed no difference in outcome. These data are important; however, they do not inform us about the safety and effectiveness of the oldest RBCs, which some patients receive. It may not be feasible to conduct a clinical trial randomizing patients to receive the oldest blood. Therefore, we propose strenuous exercise (VO2 max testing) as a model to study the relative efficacy to increase oxygen delivery to tissue of different RBC products, for example, extremes of storage duration. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS In this pilot study, eight healthy subjects had 2 units of leukoreduced RBCs collected by apheresis in AS‐3 using standard methods. Subjects were randomized to receive both (2) units of their autologous RBCs at either 7 or 42 days after blood collection. VO2 max testing on a cycle ergometer was performed 2 days before (Monday) and 2 days after (Friday) the transfusion visit (Wednesday). This design avoids confounding effects on intravascular volume from the 2‐unit blood transfusion. The primary outcome was the difference in VO2 max between Friday and Monday (delta VO2 max). RESULTS VO2 max increased more in the 7‐day RBC arm (8.7 ± 6.9% vs. 1.9 ± 6.5%, p = 0.202 for comparison between arms). Exercise duration (seconds) increased in the 7‐day RBC arm (8.4 ± 1.7%) but actually decreased in the 42‐day arm (−2.6 ± 3.6%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS This pilot study suggests that VO2 max testing has potential as a rigorous and quantitative in vivo functional assay of RBC function. Our preliminary results suggest that 42‐day RBCs are inferior to 7‐day RBCs at delivering oxygen to tissues.
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 | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".