Factors Affecting the Risk of Blood Bank Specimen Hemolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate simultaneously several possible risk factors for blood bank specimen hemolysis. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of emergency department and labor and delivery patients to estimate the effect of various factors on the risk of blood bank specimen hemolysis. Study variables included patient demographics, type and gauge of needle or catheter, anatomic location of venipuncture, and patient care area. Hemolysis was determined by blood bank laboratory technicians. Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression modeling was performed to estimate the adjusted relative risks for hemolysis. RESULTS: Of the 605 subjects with complete data, 194 (32.1%) subjects had blood specimens drawn directly with a steel needle, and 411 (69.1%) had specimens drawn through a Vialon (BD Medical Systems, Inc., Sandy, UT) intravenous (IV) angiocatheter. The overall risk of hemolysis for all was 7%, 10% for Vialon IV angiocatheters and 1.5% for steel needles. In the multivariate analysis, the factors most closely associated with hemolysis were the use of Vialon IV catheters and sampling from an anatomic site other than the antecubital area. CONCLUSIONS: Blood bank specimens drawn from Vialon IV catheters (particularly smaller gauge catheters) and from veins outside the antecubital area are at significantly increased risk to hemolyze.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".