A pilot prospective study of the vascular repair response following red cell transfusion in critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Red blood cell transfusion has been associated with adverse outcomes including infection, delayed recovery and increased mortality in some patient populations. Circulating cells that yield endothelial-like vascular progenitor cell (VPC) clusters are correlated with vascular repair and recovery after ischaemic injury. The impact of red cell transfusion on VPC clusters and vascular repair remains uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: We prospectively enrolled patients admitted to intensive care requiring red cell transfusion and subjects at low likelihood of requiring red cell transfusion. Levels of VPC clusters and plasma levels of angiogenic cytokines were compared. A total of 17 patients were recruited and had blood samples collected at time of enrolment and at 24-48 h, 48-72 h and 1 week following transfusion. RESULTS: We could not discern differences in the number of VPC clusters between transfused patients (n = 6) and non-transfused subjects (n = 11) at baseline or throughout the study period. VPC cluster levels demonstrated wide variance and were highest at 24-h post-enrolment in the entire cohort. Furthermore, levels of all 16 cytokines analysed were not significantly different between transfused and non-transfused patients and we did not observe a correlation between cytokine concentrations and levels of circulating VPC-cluster forming cells in the overall study population. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that assessment of vascular repair responses after red blood cell transfusion in critically ill patients is challenging. Although our study did not allow us to discern an influence of red cell transfusion on VPC cluster levels or angiogenic cytokines, new methods evaluating vascular repair mechanisms may be required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".