Isohemagglutinin titration in pooled and apheresis platelets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet inventory constraints necessitate ABO-incompatible platelet transfusion. Many minimize the hemolytic impact by confirming low titre (LT) donor isohemagglutinins. This process is costly. Pathogen-reduced platelets (PRP) in platelet additive solutions (PAS) will dilute plasma and decrease high-titre isohemagglutinins (HT). We determined the proportion of HT platelets and incompatible transfusions for units suspended in plasma to reassess the need for titres following introduction of PRP/PAS. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Our titre method is manual tube (1:50) dilution of platelet supernatant from apheresis or whole blood derived buffy coat pools suspended in plasma, tested with A1/B red cells. Testing included 49,058 pooled and 11,738 apheresis platelets over 4 years. The HT proportion, rate of out-of-group transfusions, and hemolytic reactions were determined. The impact of PAS dilution was estimated. RESULTS: Totally 60,796 platelet units were tested. Group O pooled and group B apheresis platelets had HT in 6.6% and 5.7%, respectively. Group A pooled and apheresis platelets included 2% with HT. Approximately 25% of platelets transfused were ABO-incompatible and no hemolytic reactions were reported. Based on the proportions of PAS-E and plasma for PRP platelets, plasma from each donor comprises 11 mL (6% of total volume) vs 20-257 mL in untreated pools. PAS-E will replace and dilute residual plasma by at least 50%. DISCUSSION: Rare platelet pools may demonstrate HT. PRP platelets with PAS will reduce titres and may abrogate the need for titration. A strategy of group specific transfusion or transfusion of group A PRP platelet transfusions may be a safe alternative.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".