Optimal Manual Exchange Transfusion Protocol for Sickle Cell Disease: A Retrospective Comparison of Two Comprehensive Care Centers in the United Kingdom and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is employed for a wide range of sickle cell disease complications, ranging from primary and secondary stroke prophylaxis to prevention of painful vaso-occlusive episodes. Currently different methods are employed by centers for chronic transfusion that include simple, automated and partial manual RBC exchange transfusion. A retrospective cohort study of two different manual RBC exchange transfusion methods was conducted between two comprehensive care centers in Toronto, ON, Canada and London, United Kingdom in 19 and 21 sickle cell disease adults, respectively. London used a weight-based protocol, while Toronto used a unit-based method. Our results indicated that sickle cell disease patients utilizing a weight-based method are more often unable to achieve the prescribed Hb S (HBB: c.20A > T) target compared to the unit-based method (90.0 vs. 53.0% in the weight-based and unit-based methods, respectively, p = 0.0123). On multivariable logistic regression, none of the covariates examined was found to influence the ability to achieve the prescribed Hb S target after accounting for the exchange transfusion method. Mean interval of exchange sessions, session duration, total units of packed RBC, volume of blood used by body weight each year, the mean post exchange hematocrit [or packed cell volume (PCV)] and ferritin change were similar in both cohorts. In conclusion, the unit-based method was more effective at maintaining the prescribed Hb S target.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".