Evaluating the quality of red blood cell concentrates irradiated before or after cryopreservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cryopreserved red blood cell concentrates (RCCs) are often required for patients with rare blood groups. Although transfusions from blood relatives are irradiated before transfusion, research has yet to make clear if this is necessary in cryopreserved RCCs. Given insufficient evidence to the contrary, irradiation of cryopreserved RCCs has been recommended, but the effect of irradiation timing is unknown. Therefore, this study was performed to assess the effect of RCC irradiation pre- and postcryopreservation on RCC quality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Nine whole blood units from healthy donors were processed into RCCs using the buffy coat method. ABO- and Rh-matched units were pooled and split into three groups: precryopreservation irradiation (pre-CIG), postcryopreservation irradiation (post-CIG), and nonirradiated controls. Hemoglobin, hematocrit, white blood cell (WBC) count, extracellular potassium, mean cell volume, red blood cell (RBC) morphology, and RBC deformability were measured. RESULTS: Extracellular potassium was greater in the irradiated conditions when compared to the nonirradiated controls and was greater in the post-CIG group when compared to the pre-CIG group (p < 0.05). WBC counts decreased after cryopreservation in all groups to values lower than the sensitivity of the assay. RBC deformability was greater in the post-CIG group when compared to the pre-CIG group and control group. No other significant differences were observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Irradiation of RCCs can be performed pre- or postcryopreservation with little effect on the RCC product, as both irradiated groups resulted in RCCs that were comparable to the nonirradiated cryopreserved RCCs.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".