Effect of blood transfusion on outcome after major burn injury: A multicenter study*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To delineate blood transfusion practices and outcomes in patients with major burn injury. CONTEXT: Patients with major burn injury frequently require multiple blood transfusions; however, the effect of blood transfusion after major burn injury has had limited study. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Regional burn centers throughout the United States and Canada. PATIENT POPULATION: Patients admitted to a participating burn center from January 1 through December 31, 2002, with acute burn injuries of >or=20% total body surface area. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Outcome measurements included mortality, number of infections, length of stay, units of blood transfused in and out of the operating room, number of operations, and anticoagulant use. RESULTS: A total of 21 burn centers contributed data on 666 patients; 79% of patients survived and received a mean of 14 units of packed red blood cells during their hospitalization. Mortality was related to patient age, total body surface area burn, inhalation injury, number of units of blood transfused outside the operating room, and total number of transfusions. The number of infections per patient increased with each unit of blood transfused (odds ratio, 1.13; p<.001). Patients on anticoagulation during hospitalization received more blood than patients not on anticoagulation (16.3+/-1.5 vs. 12.3+/-1.5, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of transfusions received was associated with mortality and infectious episodes in patients with major burns even after factoring for indices of burn severity. The utilization of blood products in the treatment of major burn injury should be reserved for patients with a demonstrated physiologic need.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".