Risk factors for T‐cell lymphopenia in frequent platelet donors: The <scp>BEST</scp> collaborative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Severe T‐cell lymphopenia of uncertain clinical significance has been observed in frequent apheresis platelet donors. Two commonly used plateletpheresis instruments are the Trima Accel, which uses a leukoreduction system (LRS) chamber to trap leukocytes and the Fenwal Amicus, which does not use an LRS chamber. Study Design and Methods We performed an international, multicenter, observational study comparing T‐cell populations in frequent platelet donors collected exclusively using the Trima instrument ( n = 131) or the Amicus instrument ( n = 77). Age‐ and sex‐matched whole blood donors ( n = 126) served as controls. Results CD4 + T‐cell counts <200 cells/μL were found in 9.9% of frequent Trima (LRS+) platelet donors, 4.4% of frequent Amicus (LRS−) platelet donors, and 0 whole blood donors ( p < .0001). CD4 + T‐cell counts <200 cells/μL were only seen in platelet donors with ≥200 lifetime donations. In multivariable analysis, age, lifetime donations, and instrument (Trima vs. Amicus) were independent risk factors for lymphopenia. In 40 Trima platelet donors, a plasma rinseback procedure was routinely performed following platelet collections. No Trima platelet donors receiving plasma rinseback had a CD4 + T‐cell count <200 cells/μL versus 13/91 Trima platelet donors not receiving plasma rinseback ( p = .01). Discussion Recurrent bulk lymphocyte removal appears to contribute to the development of T‐cell lymphopenia in frequent, long‐term platelet donors. Lymphopenia is more common when an LRS chamber is used during platelet collection but can occur without an LRS chamber. Blood centers using LRS chambers can mitigate donor lymphopenia by performing plasma rinseback.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".