MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical consequences of red cell storage in the critically ill

2006· review· en· W2060607069 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Tinmouth, Dean Fergusson, Ian Chin Yee, Paul C. Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesCARE CanadaOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineCritically illClinical trialObservational studyOxygen deliveryRed blood cellBlood preservationPhysiologyImmunologyPathologyOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red cell (RBC) transfusions are a potentially life-saving therapy employed during the care of many critically ill patients to replace losses in hemoglobin to maintain oxygen delivery to vital organs. During storage, RBCs undergo a series of biochemical and biomechanical changes that reduce their survival and function. Additionally, accumulation of other biologic by-products of RBC preservation may be detrimental to recipients of blood transfusions. Laboratory studies and an increasing number of observational studies have raised the possibility that prolonged RBC storage adversely affects clinical outcomes. In this article, the laboratory and animal experiments evaluating changes to RBCs during prolonged storage are reviewed. Subsequently, the clinical studies that have evaluated the clinical consequences of prolonged RBC storage are reviewed. These data suggest a possible detrimental clinical effect associated with the transfusion of stored RBCs; randomized clinical trials further evaluating the clinical consequences of transfusing older stored RBCs are required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations581
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207