MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of storage on efficacy of red cell transfusion: When is it not safe?

2003· review· en· W2093362111 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Ho, William J. Sibbald, Ian Chin‐Yee

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesLondon Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLeukoreductionRed blood cellProinflammatory cytokineRed Blood Cell TransfusionRed CellBlood productBlood transfusionWhole bloodPhysiologyImmunologyAnesthesiaInflammationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on red blood cell storage and its relationship to the efficacy of transfusion. RESULTS: Well-documented changes occur to the red blood cell product during ex vivo storage. These changes include a reduction in red blood cell deformability, altered red blood cell adhesiveness and aggregability, and a reduction in 2,3-diphosphoglycerate and ATP. Bioactive compounds with proinflammatory effects also accumulate in the storage medium. These changes reduce posttransfusion viability of red blood cells. The clinical effects beyond posttransfusion viability are uncertain, but a growing body of evidence suggests that the storage lesion may reduce tissue oxygen availability, have proinflammatory and immunomodulatory effects, and influence morbidity and mortality. There are no published randomized, control trials examining the effect of storage duration on morbidity and mortality. Leukoreduction improves the quality of stored red blood cell products and in some studies has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSION: Although storage duration influences the quality of red blood cell product, there is currently insufficient evidence to advocate shorter storage periods for red blood cell products.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations254
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207