Evaluation of the red blood cell and plasma transfusion guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine physicians' preferred content and format for the Guidelines for Red Blood Cell and Plasma Transfusion for Adults and Children before development in order to guide the development process. To obtain physicians' recommendations about the Guidelines' content, format, dissemination and future directions after development to guide future work on the Guidelines. DESIGN: Pre-post Guidelines qualitative design using 20 focus groups (nine pre and 11 post). STUDY PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and seven physicians (5-11 per group) who used at least 1 unit of blood over the past 6 months; with a minimum of 1 year in practice and not retired. A total of 24 physicians attended both pre and post focus groups. In general, specialties of participants included: general practice, surgery pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology and hematology/oncology. Years of practice ranged from 1 to 35 years (mean = 7 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre Guidelines focus groups made recommendations on the content and format of the Guidelines; post Guidelines focus groups made recommendations on the same areas along with dissemination and future directions. RESULTS: Three main components of the Guidelines were evaluated: content, format and dissemination. The content, which followed as much as possible that recommended by pre Guidelines focus groups, was deemed appropriate by post Guidelines focus groups, with minor gaps noted (e.g. information on alternatives to blood products). The format addressed many of the concerns raised by pre Guidelines focus groups; however, the post Guidelines focus groups were concerned about the lack of visual aids and categorization of information. The dissemination strategy was successful at diffusing the Guidelines, with some concerns expressed about reaching specific physician target groups. CONCLUSION: The pre-post focus group method was useful in conducting an evaluation of the Guidelines and this method which examined content, format and dissemination could contribute to evaluations of other guidelines.
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 | 0.071 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".