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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".