Quality assessment of red blood cell concentrates from blood donors at the extremes of the age spectrum: The <scp>BEST</scp> collaborative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood donors at the extremes of the age spectrum (16-19 years vs. ≥75 years) are characterized by increased risks of iron deficiency and anemia, and are often underrepresented in studies evaluating the effects of donor characteristics on red blood cells (RBC) transfusion effectiveness. The aim of this study was to conduct quality assessments of RBC concentrates from these unique age groups. STUDY DESIGN: We characterized 150 leukocyte-reduced (LR)-RBCs units from 75 teenage donors, who were matched by sex, and ethnicity with 75 older donors. LR-RBC units were manufactured at three large blood collection centers in the USA and Canada. Quality assessments included storage hemolysis, osmotic hemolysis, oxidative hemolysis, osmotic gradient ektacytometry, hematological indices, and RBC bioactivity. RESULTS: RBC concentrates from teenage donors had smaller (9%) mean corpuscular volume and higher (5%) RBC concentration compared with older donors counterparts. Stored RBCs from teenage donors exhibited increased susceptibility to oxidative hemolysis (>2-fold) compared with RBCs from older donors. This was observed at all testing centers independent of sex, storage duration, or the type of additive solution. RBCs from teenage male donors had increased cytoplasmatic viscosity and lower hydration compared with older donor RBCs. Evaluations of RBC supernatant bioactivity suggested that donor age was not associated with altered expression of inflammatory markers (CD31, CD54, and IL-6) on endothelial cells. CONCLUSIONS: The reported findings are likely intrinsic to RBCs and reflect age-specific changes in RBC antioxidant capacity and physical characteristics that may impact RBC survival during cold storage and after transfusion.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".