Estimated median density identifies donor age and sex differences in <scp>red blood cell</scp> biological age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Donors possess heterogeneous red cell concentrates (RCCs) in terms of the biological age of their red blood cells (RBCs) as a direct result of various donor-dependent factors influencing rates of erythropoiesis. This study aimed to estimate the median biological age of RBCs in RCCs based on donor age and sex to investigate inherent differences in blood products' biological ages over hypothermic storage using estimated median densities (EMDs). STUDY DESIGN: Sixty RCCs were collected from four donor groups; male and female teenagers (17-19 years old) and seniors (75+ years old). A Percoll density-based separation approach was used to quantify the EMDs indicative of biological age. EMD and mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCHC) were compared by correlation analyses. RESULTS: > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence that there are inherent differences between the biological age profiles of RBCs between blood donors of different sex and age. Our findings further highlight that biological age may contribute to RBC quality during storage and that donor characteristics need to be considered when evaluating transfusion safety and efficacy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".