Influence of blood storage age on immune and coagulation parameters in critically ill transfused patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several retrospective studies have suggested that transfusion with red blood cells (RBCs) stored for longer periods is associated with increased mortality. The Age of Blood Evaluation (ABLE) study randomized subjects to receive fresh vs. standard issue RBC units and showed no difference in the primary or secondary endpoints of mortality or change in multi-organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) score. METHODS: In this study a subset of 100 ABLE subjects were enrolled to measure coagulation and immune parameters. Samples were collected pre-transfusion and on days 2, 6, 28, and 180 post-transfusion. Levels of 16 coagulation parameters, regulatory and functional T cells, 25 cytokines, and 16 markers of extracellular vesicles (EVs) were determined. RESULTS: Changes from baseline in levels of protein C, factor V, and EVs expressing phosphatidyl serine and CTLA-4 (CD152) differed between recipients of fresh and standard storage age RBC units, with the vast majority of coagulation and EV markers and all cytokines tested showing no difference between study arms. Although most analytes showed no difference between subjects in the fresh and standard arms of the study, 6 coagulation parameters, 15 cytokines, and 7 EV parameters changed significantly in the period post-transfusion. DISCUSSION: Transfusion of fresh vs. standard issue RBC units does not result in substantial changes in coagulation or immune parameters, up to day 35 of RBC storage. Furthermore, significant changes in multiple coagulation and immune parameters are detectable post-transfusion, though causality cannot be determined based on the current study.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".