Transfusion practice in elective orthopaedic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. The transfusion requirements of 2233 patients who underwent total hip or knee joint arthroplasty procedures at nine Canadian hospitals during 1995-1996 were evaluated. Although 64% of patients were eligible for participation in an autologous blood donation (ABD) programme, only 8% predonated blood. Patients who were eligible for ABD were younger (62 years vs. 70 years) and had fewer medical illnesses (18% vs. 44%) than those who did not predonate. The rate of allogeneic transfusion was 9.0% (95% confidence interval 4.9-13.1%) in patients who predonated as compared with 24.1% (95% confidence interval 22.2-25.9%) in those who did not. Risk factors for the occurrence of an allogeneic transfusion were type of procedure (primary or revision hip arthroplasty), lower baseline haemoglobin, lower body weight, older age and presence of rheumatoid arthritis (P < 0.001). Only patients without risk factors were predicted to have a less than 10% risk of receiving an allogeneic transfusion. Use of preventive strategies was minimal. Two models designed to predict the occurrence of an allogeneic transfusion were evaluated. If allogeneic transfusion rates are to be reduced, eligible patients should be encouraged to participate in ABD programmes. For patients who are ineligible, other preventative strategies should be introduced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".