MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551870152 · doi:10.1111/trf.12468

The <scp>N</scp>ational <scp>H</scp>eart, <scp>L</scp>ung, and <scp>B</scp>lood <scp>I</scp>nstitute <scp>R</scp>ecipient <scp>E</scp>pidemiology and <scp>D</scp>onor <scp>E</scp>valuation <scp>S</scp>tudy (<scp>REDS</scp>‐<scp>III</scp>): a research program striving to improve blood donor and transfusion recipient outcomes

2013· article· en· W1551870152 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDonationMedicineBlood transfusionEpidemiologyBusinessSurgeryInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-III (REDS-III) is a 7-year multicenter transfusion safety research initiative launched in 2011 by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The domestic component involves four blood centers, 12 hospitals, a data coordinating center, and a central laboratory. The international component consists of distinct programs in Brazil, China, and South Africa, which involve US and in-country investigators. RESULTS: REDS-III is using two major methods to address key research priorities in blood banking and transfusion medicine. First, there will be numerous analyses of large "core" databases; the international programs have each constructed a donor and donation database while the domestic program has established a detailed research database that links data from blood donors and their donations, the components made from these donations, and data extracts from the electronic medical records of the recipients of these components. Second, there are more than 25 focused research protocols involving transfusion recipients, blood donors, or both that either are in progress or are scheduled to begin within the next 3 years. Areas of study include transfusion epidemiology and blood utilization, transfusion outcomes, noninfectious transfusion risks, human immunodeficiency virus-related safety issues (particularly in the international programs), emerging infectious agents, blood component quality, donor health and safety, and other donor issues. CONCLUSIONS: It is intended that REDS-III serve as an impetus for more widespread recipient and linked donor-recipient research in the United States as well as to help assure a safe and available blood supply in the United States and in international locations.

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.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0120.011
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.016
Science and technology studies0.0150.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.017
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.263 · 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