White blood cell‐containing allogeneic blood transfusion, postoperative infection and mortality: a meta‐analysis of observational ‘before‐and‐after’ studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: An association of white blood cell (WBC) reduction with decreased mortality was reported by one observational, before-and-after study. A meta-analysis was undertaken to examine whether this finding is supported by all the evidence currently available from before-and-after studies, and whether these studies support an association of WBC reduction with a decreased risk of postoperative infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational, before-and-after studies were retrieved that reported on postoperative infection and/or mortality between January 1997 and June 2003. Six studies met the criteria for meta-analysis. Unadjusted summary odds ratios (ORs) of postoperative infection or mortality in patients transfused after (compared with before) WBC reduction were calculated across the studies if the hypothesis of homogeneity was not rejected. Adjusted summary ORs were calculated across three studies that had reported multivariate analyses. RESULTS: There was an unadjusted association of WBC reduction with a decreased risk of postoperative infection [summary OR = 0.93; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.88-0.99; P < 0.01] that did not persist following adjustment for confounding factors (summary OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04; P > 0.05). There was neither an unadjusted nor an adjusted association of WBC reduction with decreased mortality (summary OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.71-1.23; P > 0.05; and OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05; P > 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: An association of WBC reduction with decreased mortality was not detected across the results available from all before-and-after studies. An unadjusted association of WBC reduction with a decreased risk of postoperative infection exists, but this was not detected across the three studies that reported multivariate analyses.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".