A randomized controlled pilot study of adherence to transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important to determine the optimal hemoglobin (Hb) concentration for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion for patients undergoing cardiac surgery because increased mortality has been associated with the severity of anemia and exposure to RBCs. Because a definitive trial will require thousands of patients, and because there is variability in transfusion practices, a pilot study was undertaken to determine adherence to proposed strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A single-center parallel randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted in high-risk cardiac patients to assess adherence to two transfusion strategies. Fifty patients were randomly assigned either to a "restrictive" transfusion strategy (RBCs if their Hb concentration was 70 g/L or less intraoperatively during cardiopulmonary bypass [CPB] and 75 g/L or less postoperatively) or a "liberal" transfusion strategy (RBCs if their Hb concentration was 95 g/L or less during CPB and less than 100 g/L postoperatively). RESULTS: The percentage of adherence overall was 84% in the restrictive arm and 41% in the liberal arm. Twenty-two (88%) patients were transfused 99 units of RBCs in the liberal group compared to 13 patients who were transfused 50 units in the restrictive group (p<0.01). There were no significant differences in individual adverse outcomes; however, more adverse events occurred in the restrictive group (38 vs. 15, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Adherence to the evaluated interventions is vital to all randomized controlled trials as it has the potential to affect outcomes. Further pilot studies are required to optimize enrollment and transfusion adherence before a definitive study is conducted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".