Safe and Successful Restriction of Transfusion in Burn Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An acceptable strategy for transfusion of burn patients has not been specifically identified. In 1999, we empirically adopted a hemoglobin (Hb) transfusion trigger of 7.0 g/dl or greater in our burn center. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of this restrictive transfusion strategy. Retrospective comparison of adults with 20% or greater TBSA treated from 1999 to 2004 (restrictive group; REST) with patients treated before our adoption of the restrictive transfusion strategy (1997-1998: liberal group; LIB). The REST group (n = 135, age 42 +/- 17 years, %TBSA burn 37 +/- 14, and 26% incidence of inhalation injury) did not differ significantly from the LIB group (n = 37, age 42 +/- 16 years, %TBSA burn 38 +/- 17, and 35% inhalation injury). The Hb triggering a transfusion was 7.1 +/- 1.2 g/dl in the REST group, compared with 9.2 +/- 2.1 g/dl in the LIB group (P < .001). The REST group received significantly fewer units of blood per day than the LIB Group. Patients in the REST group appeared to have significantly better organ function, and there were no differences between the groups in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction. Mortality at 30 days was significantly lower in the REST group (19% vs 38%; P = .03), as was overall in-hospital mortality (22% vs 46%; P = .003). Transfusion restriction appears to be safe and resulted in fewer transfusions among this group of burn patients. Prospective studies are needed before broadly recommending a transfusion trigger of 7.0 g/dl.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".