Why have meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials of the association between non‐white‐blood‐cell‐reduced allogeneic blood transfusion and postoperative infection produced discordant results?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intention-to-treat analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the association between non-white-blood-cell (WBC)-reduced allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) and postoperative infection were reported as the reason why meta-analyses of RCTs of this association have produced discordant results. We examined three possible reasons for disagreements between meta-analyses: (i) sources of medical heterogeneity and integration of RCTs despite extreme heterogeneity; (ii) reliance on as-treated (vs. intention-to-treat) comparisons; and (iii) inclusion (or not) of the three most recent RCTs. When nine RCTs reported up to 2002 were combined despite extreme heterogeneity, both intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons found an association between non-WBC-reduced ABT and postoperative infection [summary odds ratio (OR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.85, P < 0.05; and summary OR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.06-2.31, P < 0.05, respectively]. When 12 RCTs reported up to 2005 were integrated despite extreme heterogeneity, both intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons found no association of non-WBC-reduced ABT with postoperative infection (summary OR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.56, P > 0.05; and summary OR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.98-1.75, P > 0.05, respectively). In both analyses, the separate integration of four RCTs transfusing red blood cells (RBCs) or whole blood filtered after storage showed an association between non-WBC-reduced ABT and postoperative infection, whereas the separate integration of six (or nine) RCTs, reported through 2002 or 2005, and transfusing prestorage-filtered RBCs showed no association, whether intention-to-treat or as-treated comparisons were used. Thus, the published meta-analyses have produced discordant results because they did (or did not) investigate medical sources of heterogeneity and did (or did not) include the most recent RCTs. Intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons produced concordant results.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it