Comparison of blood transfusion practice in two hospitals before and after publication of evidence of acceptable haemoglobin levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><b>Introduction and background</b>: Following publication of Canadian Multicentre Trial in 1999 we performed an audit of blood use and haemoglobins in two intensive care units to assess the impact of this evidence on practice.</p> \n \n<p><b>Methods:</b> For all intensive care admissions the highest and lowest haemoglobins and units of blood transfused were recorded. Data was collected for July-December 1998 and July-December 1999. Data from blood transfusion service and routine haematology was combined in a single database and analysed using Mann-Whitney Testing for changes between the two time periods.</p> \n \n<p><b>Results:</b> In both centres the lowest haemoglobin fell significantly (P < 0.05) between the two time periods.</p> \n \n<p><b>Discussion:</b> The clinical practice in these two units changed over this time period. Clinical evidence appears to be having a measurable effect on clinical practice.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".