Cold‐stored leukoreduced whole blood: Extending the time between donation and filtration has minimal impact on in vitro quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leukoreduced whole blood (LR-WB) has received renewed attention as alternative to component-based transfusion in trauma. According to the manufacturer's instructions, leukoreduction should be carried out within 8 h after collection. This study assessed impact of (1) WB collection bag, (2) LR filtration, and (3) timing of filtration on in vitro quality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: WB collected into different vendor bags was held at room temperature for <8 h or >16 h but <24 h prior to LR. In vitro quality was assessed before and after filtration, and throughout 3 weeks of storage at 4°C. Cell count and hemoglobin levels were determined by hematology analyzer, platelet activation, and responsiveness to ADP by surface expression of P-selectin by flow cytometry, hemolysis by HemoCue, and metabolic parameters by blood gas analyzer. Hemostatic properties were assessed by rotational thromboelastometry. Plasma protein activities and clotting times were determined by automated coagulation analyzer or quantitative immunoblotting. RESULTS: Bag type had no impact on WB in vitro quality. LR by filtration had some impact, but is aligned with data in the literature. The time between donation and filtration resulted in some statistically significant differences in metabolic activity, platelet yield, platelet activation, and factor protein activity initially; however, these differences in in vitro quality attributes decreased throughout 21-day cold storage. CONCLUSION: WB hold time showed only a minor impact on WB in vitro quality, so it may be possible for blood processing facilities to explore extended hold times prior to filtration in order to provide greater operational flexibility.
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) | 0.000 | 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".