Quality Assessment of Established and Emerging Blood Components for Transfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood is donated either as whole blood, with subsequent component processing, or through the use of apheresis devices that extract one or more components and return the rest of the donation to the donor. Blood component therapy supplanted whole blood transfusion in industrialized countries in the middle of the twentieth century and remains the standard of care for the majority of patients receiving a transfusion. Traditionally, blood has been processed into three main blood products: red blood cell concentrates; platelet concentrates; and transfusable plasma. Ensuring that these products are of high quality and that they deliver their intended benefits to patients throughout their shelf-life is a complex task. Further complexity has been added with the development of products stored under nonstandard conditions or subjected to additional manufacturing steps (e.g., cryopreserved platelets, irradiated red cells, and lyophilized plasma). Here we review established and emerging methodologies for assessing blood product quality and address controversies and uncertainties in this thriving and active field of investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".