Donor age contributes more to the rheological properties of stored red blood cells than donor sex and biological age distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The quality of stored red cell concentrates (RCCs) has been linked to the biological age distribution of red blood cell (RBC) subpopulations. Teenage male RCCs contain higher proportions of biologically old RBCs, with poorer quality. This study sought to assess the contribution of donor sex and age on the deformability characteristics of RBC subpopulations in stored RCCs. On days 5, 14, 28, and 42 of hypothermic storage, RCCs from healthy teenage male (n = 15), senior male (n = 15), teenage female (n = 15), and senior female (n = 15) donors were biologically age profiled. The deformability of the resulting young RBCs and old RBCs (O-RBCs) was assessed using ektacytometry. Over storage, donor age was the biggest factor influencing the rheology of RBC subpopulations. Teenage male RCCs had the largest reduction in Ohyper (osmolality in the hypertonic region corresponding to 50% of the maximum RBC elongation [EImax]). The strongest correlations between Ohyper and mean corpuscular hemoglobin content (R2 > 0.5) were witnessed with O-RBCs from senior donors, and to a lesser extent with teenage males. Teen O-RBCs, particularly from males, had higher elongation indices, both under isotonic conditions and in the presence of an increasing osmotic gradient. Teen RBCs, regardless of biological age, were discovered to be more rigid (higher shear stress required to reach half the EImax). Donor variation in the age distribution of RBC subpopulations and its downstream effect on deformability serves as further evidence that factors beyond storage could potentially affect RCC quality and transfusion outcomes.
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".