Does RBC Storage Age Effect Inflammation, Immune Function and Susceptibility to Transfusion Associated Microchimerism in Critically Ill Patients? Adverse Effects of RBC Storage in Critically Ill Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : Critically ill patients are specifically at risk of adverse effects resulting from the use of RBCs of increased storage age. A large multicenter randomized controlled trial in 30 Canadian centers of 2500 critically ill patients called the Age of Blood Evaluation (ABLE) trial has been completed. In this trial of critically ill patients, which included patients with traumatic injuries, study groups were randomized to either RBCs of 8 days storage time or standard RBC storage time. The primary outcome of this trial is 90 day mortality. Secondary outcomes include severity of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, serious thrombotic events and nosocomial infections, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Prospective clinical studies investigating the mechanisms and clinical outcomes associated with increased or decreased RBC storage age in critically ill patients including traumatic injury have not been performed. The ABLE study presents a unique and probably one-time opportunity to investigate mechanisms in the context of clinical outcomes for well-characterized study groups. Our ancillary study was designed to determine specific mechanisms of adverse effects related to the RBC storage age in transfused critically ill patients enrolled in the ABLE study. Specifically we determined if the RBC unit storage time affects patient s immune function, inflammation, coagulation, microparticle concentrations and microchimerism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".