MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Challenges in testing for platelet‐related adverse events

2011· article· en· W1537402343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jens Kjeldsen‐Kragh

Bibliographic record

VenueISBT Science Series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectPlateletIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to haemovigilance data from many Western countries, platelet concentrates (PCs) is the type of blood component most frequently associated with transfusion reactions [1].In a prospective study by Heddle et al. adverse events were reported to occur in up to 31% of platelet transfusion [2], but more recently, the incidence of transfusions reactions to PCs has been reported to be around 2% or less [3,4].Although differences in the reporting practice make direct comparison between studies difficult, the frequency of adverse reactions to platelets has undoubtedly decreased considerably during the last two decades.The most important single cause that can explain this decreased number of transfusion reactions is various improvements in production and storage of PCs.Most platelet-related adverse events are mild and nonlife threatening reactions.More rarely, transfusion of platelets is associated with potentially fatal reactions such as transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), septicaemia and severe anaphylactic reactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISBT Science SeriesSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207