Estimated median density identifies donor age and sex differences in <scp>red blood cell</scp> biological age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Differences in the median biological age of RCC units were observed with male donors having significantly higher EMDs compared to females ( p < .001). Teen male donors possessed the highest EMDs with significantly elevated levels of biologically aged RBCs compared to both female donor groups, regardless of storage duration ( p < .05). Throughout most of the 42‐day storage period, senior donors, particularly senior females, demonstrated the strongest correlation between EMD and MCHC ( R 2 > 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 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".