ABO‐identical versus nonidentical platelet transfusion: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The significance of ABO matching for platelet (PLT) transfusion has not been clearly defined. The primary objective of this report is to assess whether ABO-identical PLT transfusion is associated with improved mortality and/or morbidity for patients with hematologic/oncologic disorders. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review to January 2009 was conducted. Data on mortality, morbidity, PLT refractoriness, and PLT increment after transfusion were abstracted. RESULTS: A total of 100 citations were identified. Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. A total of 1502 patients from three randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies were included. Survival, bleeding events, and transfusion reactions were only considered as secondary outcomes in the reports reviewed. The PLT count increment was the primary outcome of several studies and was consistently higher with ABO-identical PLT transfusion. The largest difference in increment between ABO-identical and nonidentical PLT transfusion was 4 x 10(9)/L. No consistent benefit in clinical outcomes was noted. Survival was assessed in three reports with conflicting results. Although two studies described bleeding as an outcome, the assessment of hemorrhage was considered inadequate. In six studies, ABO-nonidentical PLT transfusion was not associated with transfusion reactions, and the results from four studies addressing the impact of ABO-identical PLT transfusion on PLT and red blood cell utilization were conflicting. CONCLUSION: ABO-identical PLT transfusion results in a higher PLT increment. Randomized controlled trials are required to definitely determine the effect of ABO-identical PLT transfusion on survival, bleeding events, or transfusion reactions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".