Pneumonia as a complication of blood product transfusion in the critically ill: Transfusion-related immunomodulation (TRIM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increased risk of postoperative infection (including pneumonia) attributable to the receipt of allogeneic blood transfusion has been investigated as a possible manifestation of transfusion-related immunomodulation (TRIM) in 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and approximately 40 observational studies. OBJECTIVES: This review categorizes RCTs and observational studies with regard to the inference that they permit about possible mediators of TRIM-allogeneic white cells (WBCs), WBC-derived soluble mediators, and/or allogeneic plasma-and examines whether the totality of the clinical evidence supports an association between allogeneic blood transfusion and postoperative infection. RESULTS: When all available studies are considered together in meta-analyses, three types of studies show no increased risk of postoperative infection in association with allogeneic blood transfusion: a) RCTs comparing recipients of buffy-coat-reduced and prestorage-filtered, WBC-reduced allogeneic red cells; b) RCTs comparing recipients of allogeneic and autologous blood; and c) observational studies comparing patients transfused before and after implementation of WBC reduction. RCTs comparing recipients of nonbuffy-coat-reduced and WBC-reduced red blood cells may point to a TRIM effect, but they cannot yet be subjected to formal meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: No overwhelming clinical evidence has been presented to establish the existence of a TRIM effect that relates allogeneic blood transfusion to postoperative infection.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".