MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408224466 · doi:10.1016/j.blre.2025.101283

Innovations in red blood cell preservation

2025· review· en· W4408224466 on OpenAlexafffund
Nishaka William, Jason P. Acker

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythrocyte Function and Pathophysiology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsRed blood cellMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global infrastructure supporting nearly 100 million transfusions annually relies on the ability to store red cell concentrates (RCCs) for up to 42 days at hypothermic temperatures or indefinitely at low sub-zero temperatures. While these methods are generally effective, there is both an opportunity and, in specific settings, a need to refine storage techniques that have remained largely unchanged since the 1980s. Recent research has identified ways to address limitations that were not fully understood when these methods were first implemented in blood banks, with much of it focusing on modifying conventional storage strategies, while some studies explore alternative approaches. In this review, we explore the current state of RBC preservation and the future prospects for advancing both short- and long-term storage strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood ReviewsSame topicErythrocyte Function and PathophysiologyFrench-language works237,207