Transfusion practices for elective orthopedic surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of blood conservation techniques in elective surgery reduces the risk of infection and transfusion reactions that result from using allogeneic blood products. We examined the transfusion practice and blood conservation strategies for elective orthopedic procedures in 19 Canadian hospitals. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent total hip or knee joint arthroplasty between June 1998 and January 1999 in a convenience sample of 19 hospitals to determine the pre- and postoperative hemoglobin concentrations, concurrent medical conditions, participation status in an autologous blood donation program, use of other blood conservation techniques, and occurrence of allogeneic and autologous transfusions. Patients were considered eligible for autologous blood donation if they weighed at least 25 kg, were in good general health without major cardiac conditions and had a hemoglobin concentration of at least 110 g/L. RESULTS: We reviewed 4535 medical records. Of the 4422 patients whose eligibility status was known, 2561 (57.9%) were eligible to participate in an autologous blood donation program. Only 842 (18.6%) of the patients predonated blood. Patients who did not predonate blood were older (mean age 70.1 v. 63.8 years) and were more likely to have concomitant medical conditions (60.3% v. 37.9%) than those who did predonate. Overall, 30.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.1%-32.1%) of the patients who did not predonate blood received allogeneic transfusions. For patients who predonated, the rate of allogeneic transfusion was 14.1% (95% CI 11.8%-16.5%). The frequency with which blood conservation techniques other than autologous blood donation were used was minimal (in 2.4% of all cases). INTERPRETATION: The use of blood conservation techniques among hospitals in Canada remains low. Only a minority of eligible patients participated in an autologous blood donation program.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".