Retrograde autologous priming and allogeneic blood transfusions: a meta-analysis
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
A literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to assess the clinical effectiveness of retrograde autologous priming of the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit to reduce allogeneic packed red blood transfusions in adult cardiac surgery. Structured searches of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration Library, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Science Direct were performed to identify randomized trials comparing retrograde autologous priming to a prospective control group. A total of 21,643 studies were identified and eighteen trials were retrieved for full-text review. Six trials met eligibility criteria. Pooled estimates demonstrated that retrograde autologous priming significantly reduced the number of patients receiving intraoperative packed red cell transfusions (OR=0.36; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.94; P=0.04, I(2)=47.5%), total hospital stay packed red cell transfusions (OR=0.26; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.52; P=0.0001, I(2)=0%), and the number of units transfused of total hospital stay packed red blood cells (WMD=-0.60; 95% CI: -0.90, -0.31; P=0.0001, I(2)=0%). Retrograde autologous priming, however, did not provide a clinical benefit in reducing the number of units transfused of intraoperative packed red blood cells (WMD=-0.29; 95% CI: -0.59, 0.01; P=0.05). The combined patient population studied in the six trials was mainly primary isolated coronary artery bypass surgery. Assessing the safety of retrograde autologous priming was not possible due to limited data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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