Safety evaluation of a lyophilized platelet‐derived hemostatic product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current limitations of platelet shelf life to 5 days have led to an increasingly greater demand for hemostatic agents with greater longevity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the function of a lyophilized platelet-derived hemostatic product (thrombosome [TS]) as a potential alternative to fresh platelets. METHODS: Platelets were collected from whole blood from healthy donors. TSs were reconstituted with water and added to various configurations of reassembled whole blood (platelets, plasma, and RBCs); measures included rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), optical aggregometry, mitochondrial function, calibrated automated thrombogram, collagen adhesion under flow (shear flow assay), and flow cytometry. RESULTS: In ROTEM, no differences were observed between maximum clot formation values for contact pathway activation thromboelastometry tests with TSs or platelet samples. Significantly decreased aggregation was observed in the TSs versus platelets (p < 0.001 for all agonists). Flow cytometry measures demonstrated significant decreases in glycoprotein Ib expression and increases in phosphatidylserine expression in the TS group (p < 0.01). The calibrated automated thrombogram assay was suggestive (lag time and peak thrombin) that the TSs might have some thrombogenic properties. Measurements of mitochondrial function revealed that TSs had no functional mitochondria. CONCLUSION: In this study, TSs were shown to have nonfunctional mitochondria. ROTEM measures revealed that the TSs had no impact on clot strength. Likewise, compared to platelets, the TSs displayed minimal aggregation, had significantly more phosphatidylserine (measure of activation status), but had the ability to adhere to a collagen surface under flow conditions and contribute to clot formation and induced greater thrombin generation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".