MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022839606 · doi:10.1191/0267659105pf821oa

Are we doing everything we can to conserve blood during bypass? A national survey

2005· article· en· W2022839606 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineCardiotomyCardiopulmonary bypassBlood conservationCardiac surgeryIntensive care medicineBlood managementPopulationBlood productSurgeryAnesthesiaBlood transfusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite major advances in biomaterial research and blood conservation, bleeding is still a common complication after cardiopulmonary bypass and cardiac surgery remains a major consumer of blood products. Although the underlying mechanisms for these effects are not fully established, two proposed major etiologies are the hemodilution associated with the use of the heart-lung machine and the impact of reinfusion of shed cardiotomy blood. Therapeutic strategies that primarily encompass the use of devices or technologies to overcome these effects may result in improved clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which 1) lipid/leukocyte filtration and centrifugal processing of cardiotomy blood, and 2) modified ultrafiltration (MUF) are currently applied in adult cardiac surgery in Canada. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to the chief perfusionist at all adult cardiac surgical centers in Canada, addressing details regarding the frequency of use of cardiotomy blood processing and MUF. RESULTS: All questionnaires (36, 100%) were completed and returned. With regards to cardiotomy blood management, in 21 centers (58%), no specific processing steps were utilized exclusive of the integrated cardiotomy reservoir filter. Of the remaining centers, two (6%) reported using lipid/leukocyte filtration and 15 (42%) reported washing their cardiotomy blood. Three centers (8%) reported using MUF at the end of CPB. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing concern about the potential detrimental effects of cardiotomy blood, few centers in Canada routinely manage this blood with additional filtration and/or centrifugal processing prior to reinfusion. Similarly, MUF, demonstrated to be effective in the pediatric population, has not seen popular application in adult cardiac surgical practice.

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)0.001
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.259 · 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