MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A multicenter pilot‐randomized controlled trial of the feasibility of an augmented red blood cell transfusion strategy for patients treated with induction chemotherapy for acute leukemia or stem cell transplantation

2007· article· en· W2051158364 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Blood ServicesQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of WaterlooUniversity Health NetworkDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialBleedAcute leukemiaConfidence intervalTransplantationSurgeryRandomizationBlood transfusionRelative riskChemotherapyMulticenter trialHemoglobinAnemiaInternal medicinePlatelet transfusionLeukemiaPlateletMulticenter study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anemia may be an important factor contributing to an increased risk of bleeding, particularly in patients with thrombocytopenia. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A multicenter, single-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT to determine the effect of the hemoglobin (Hb) concentration on bleeding risk. Patients with acute leukemia receiving induction chemotherapy or those undergoing stem cell transplantation were assigned to one of two treatment groups: standard transfusion strategy (transfusion of 2 units of red blood cells [RBCs] when their Hb level was less than 80 g/L) or an augmented transfusion strategy (transfusion of 2 units of RBCs when their Hb level was less than 120 g/L). RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled: 29 in the control group and 31 in the experimental group. The proportions of patients experiencing clinically significant bleeding and the time to first bleed were not significantly different between the control and experimental groups. The experimental group received more RBC transfusions (transfusions/patient-day) than the control group (0.233 vs. 0.151; relative risk, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.10; p = 0.003). The proportion of patient-days with platelet (PLT) transfusions was not different between the experimental and control groups. The mean number of donor exposures (PLT and RBC transfusions) was not different between experimental and control groups. Bleeding symptoms were systematically documented. CONCLUSION: This pilot study thus indicated that it would be feasible to enroll the required number of patients to enable the performance of a large RCT to investigate the effect of Hb on bleeding risk in thrombocytopenic patients.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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