Experience of a network of transfusion coordinators for blood conservation (Ontario Transfusion Coordinators [ONTraC])
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The experiences of the development of a provincial program to promote blood conservation are herein reported. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Transfusion coordinators were placed in 23 Ontario hospitals. Anonymized laboratory and clinical information was collected in a defined number of all consecutive patients admitted for three designated procedures: knee arthroplasty, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (n approximately 1100, 300, and 300 at each time period, respectively). RESULTS: Considerable interinstitutional variation was observed in the proportion of patients who received transfusions. At 12 months, and over the 24-month period of the project, most hospitals demonstrated decreased use of allogeneic blood; at 12 months an approximate 24 percent reduction in patients undergoing knee surgery, 14 percent in AAA, and 23 percent in CABG was obtained. In addition, patients who received transfusions received less allogeneic blood. Patients who did not receive allogeneic transfusions had lower postoperative infection rates (p < 0.05) and length of stay (p < 0.0001); allogeneic transfusion was an independent predictor of increased length of stay. The main blood conservation measures employed during this time were education, preoperative autologous donation, erythropoietin, and cell salvage. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a provincial network of transfusion coordinators was feasible and allogeneic transfusion rates declined over the period the program has been in place.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".