Comparison of Neutrophil Function in Granulocyte Concentrates From Prednisone- and G-CSF-Treated Donors: Effect of Stimulant, Leukapheresis and Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transfusion of granulocyte concentrates (GC) is an alternative therapy for neutropenic patients with life-threatening infections. While neutrophils are the main source of antimicrobial activity, only neutrophil numbers are used to certify GCs. The objective of this study was thus to functionally characterize neutrophils in GCs prepared by leukapheresis from G-CSF-stimulated donors and compare to the less characterized prednisone GCs. GCs prepared from healthy donors stimulated with prednisone and then G-CSF after a 6-month washout period were analyzed prior to and after leukapheresis, and after storage. Leukocyte composition, neutrophil viability, calcium mobilization, chemotaxis, phagocytosis, reactive oxygen species, cytokine production and metabolites were determined. G-CSF GCs contained significantly more neutrophils than prednisone GCs of which 40% were immature. In comparison to non-stimulated healthy donor neutrophils, prednisone GC neutrophils exhibited enhanced phagocytosis and G-CSF GC neutrophils showed decreased chemotaxis but increased IL-8 production. Leukapheresis altered prednisone GC neutrophil responses. Storage had a significant, negative impact on G-CSF GC neutrophils compared to prednisone GC neutrophils. G-CSF and prednisone GC neutrophils thus differ in maturity and function, and G-CSF GC neutrophils are more sensitive to storage. Functional testing of GC neutrophils and better storage conditions would improve the quality of this blood product.
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".