Transfusion reactions: a comparative observational study of blood components produced before and after implementation of semiautomated production from whole blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A semiautomated method of component production from whole blood was implemented at Canadian Blood Services. To assess safety of the new components, the frequency of adverse transfusion events (ATEs) to platelet components (PCs) and red blood cell (RBCs) produced before and after implementation of the new method was surveyed and compared. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective, observational, noninferiority study was conducted in 12 sentinel hospitals across Canada. The control group received RBCs in additive solution-3 (AS-3) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-produced platelets (PLTs) for 3 to 11 months before implementation of semiautomated production, and the study group received RBCs in saline-adenine-glucose-mannitol (SAGM) and buffy coat (BC)-produced PLTs for 3 to 11 months after implementation. ATE definitions at each hospital and standard practice for reporting did not change between control and study periods. Data for analysis were obtained from databases and original report forms. RESULTS: The pooled risk ratio of a reaction to SAGM versus AS-3 RBCs was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.90), suggesting that SAGM products had significantly lower reaction rates than AS-3 products (p < 0.01). Reported allergic reactions to RBCs decreased from 0.07% (AS-3) to 0.04% (SAGM). For PLTs, the difference in reaction rates between BC and PRP was not significant (p = 0.37), and the pooled risk ratio of BC versus PRP was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.86-1.50). CONCLUSION: The change in manufacturing method was associated with lower reaction rates to SAGM RBCs than to AS-3 RBCs. Pooled BC PLTs were noninferior to random-donor PRP PLTs with respect to ATEs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".