Perioperative blood transfusion and albumin administration are independent risk factors for the development of postoperative infections after colorectal surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether transfused colorectal surgery patients were at increased risk for postoperative infections in a tertiary care teaching hospital and whether transfusion alone was the only significant risk factor. DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: A single tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to St. Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, for colorectal surgery during the period Apr. 1, 1995, through Mar. 31, 1996, were studied (N = 154). RESULTS: The overall infection rate was 17%: nontransfused patients, 13%, and transfused patients, 28% (p < 0.038). Patients who received albumin perioperatively had a significantly higher infection rate (38%) than those who did not (13%) (p < 0.001). Stepwise logistic regression analysis identified transfusion and albumin administration as the only independent risk factors for postoperative infection. CONCLUSION: Perioperative transfusion or albumin administration significantly increases the risk of postoperative infection in colorectal surgery patients.
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".