The effect of blood usage protocol on the age of packed red blood cell transfusions administered at 2 veterinary teaching hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal duration of storage of units of canine packed red blood cells (PRBC) prior to transfusion, resulting in different blood usage strategies between hospitals. Two hospitals were studied: At North Carolina State University (NCSU), usage protocol dictates that the oldest units of PRBC (stored the longest) are prioritized for transfusion; whereas, at Ontario Veterinary College (OVC), units of PRBC are sorted according to age (days after collection) and PRBC are selected for transfusion according to clinician or technician discretion, such that PRBC could be administered after any storage duration, with no preference given to older units. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in the age of PRBC administered to dogs at 2 veterinary hospitals with different age-related PRBC usage protocols during a 1-year period (2010-2011). KEY FINDINGS: The average age of units of PRBC administered at NCSU was older than that at OVC (P < 0.001). Additionally, a higher number of PRBC units older than 14 days old were transfused at NCSU (P < 0.001), and the age of the oldest administered PRBC unit was also older at NCSU (P < 0.001). NCSU discarded approximately 15 expired PRBC units, whereas OVC discarded 96 expired PRBC units during the study period. SIGNIFICANCE: A standardized protocol for the priority administration of the oldest stored PRBC resulted in the administration of significantly older PRBC, but fewer expired units of PRBC were discarded.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".