Posttransfusion platelet count increments after ABO‐compatible versus ABO‐incompatible platelet transfusions in noncancer patients: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major incompatible platelet (PLT) transfusions have been associated with inferior posttransfusion PLT count increments compared with ABO-compatible transfusions. However, most studies to date have been small and involved hematology/oncology patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in predominantly nononcologic patients to determine whether ABO-compatible (defined as ABO identical and minor incompatible) PLT transfusions resulted in superior posttransfusion PLT count increments. We collected data on consecutive inpatients at Hamilton General Hospital receiving a PLT transfusion during a 50-month period. We compared the absolute count increment (ACI) and corrected count increment (CCI) values in ABO-compatible versus incompatible PLT transfusions. Linear regression was performed to adjust for factors potentially affecting the posttransfusion PLT count response. Univariate models were applied to each explanatory variable with p values of less than 0.10 considered potentially significant. Multivariate models were applied to all potential explanatory variables of interest. p values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1030 transfusions were included in the primary analysis, 73.7% of which were ABO compatible. The median ACI was 35 (interquartile range [IQR], 18-55) for compatible transfusions versus 31 (IQR, 13-51) for incompatible transfusions (p = 0.1480). The median posttransfusion CCI (n = 686) was 18.6 (IQR, 10.2-28.4) for compatible transfusions versus 15.2 (IQR, 4.7-25.7) for incompatible transfusions (p = 0.0499). CONCLUSIONS: ABO-compatible transfusions in nononcologic patients are associated with a significantly better CCI although the observed difference is small (approx. 20%) and may not be clinically significant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".