MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effects of a treatment protocol for cardiac surgical patients with excessive blood loss on clinical outcomes

2006· article· en· W2020621743 on OpenAlex
Keyvan Karkouti, T. Yau, A. van Rensburg, Stuart A. McCluskey, Jeannie Callum, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, W. Scott Beattie

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioAdverse effectConfidence intervalSurgerySepsisLogistic regressionComplicationStroke (engine)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Excessive blood loss (EBL) is a common complication of cardiac surgery that is associated with adverse events. The objective of this before/after study was to determine whether the implementation of a protocol for management of cardiac surgical patients with EBL was associated with improved clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2002, a protocol for prompt identification and aggressive management of cardiac surgical patients with EBL was implemented at our institution. The independent relationship between protocol implementation and adverse outcomes was measured by comparing the outcomes of patients who received > or = 4 RBC (red blood cell) units within 1 day of surgery and were operated on before protocol implementation (2000-02) with those operated on after protocol implementation (2003-05), using multivariable logistic regression analysis to control for the effects of confounders. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events that included death, renal failure, stroke, and sepsis. Bootstrapping was used to confirm the validity of the results. RESULTS: Of the 11,314 patients who underwent surgery during the study period, 1875 (16.6%) received > or = 4 RBC units within 1 day of surgery, with 958 and 917 in the pre- and postprotocol periods, respectively. The composite adverse outcome occurred in 164 (17.1%) patients in the preprotocol period and 115 (12.5%) patients in the postprotocol period (P = 0.005). Protocol implementation was independently associated with reduced odds of the composite adverse outcome (odds ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.50, 0.91; P = 0.01). This estimate was stable in bootstrap sampling. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a protocol to manage EBL in cardiac surgery was independently associated with improved outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it