A multidisciplinary “think tank”: the top 10 clinical trial opportunities in transfusion medicine from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored 2009 state‐of‐the‐science symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In September 2009, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened the State-of-the-Science Symposium in Transfusion Medicine to identify Phase II and/or III clinical trials that would provide important information to advance transfusion medicine. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Seven multidisciplinary subcommittees developed proposals in the following areas: 1) platelet (PLT) product use, 2) neonatal and/or pediatric transfusion practice, 3) surgical transfusion practice, 4) intensive care unit and/or in trauma transfusion practice, 5) plasma and/or cryoprecipitate product use and therapeutic apheresis practice, 6) red blood cell (RBC) product use and/or blood conservation management, and 7) medical transfusion practice or blood donor studies. The committees consisted of transfusion medicine specialists, hematologists, cardiovascular surgeons, anesthesiologists, neonatologists, critical care physicians, and clinical trial methodologists. Proposals were presented and an external panel evaluated and prioritized each concept for scientific merit, clinical importance, and feasibility. RESULTS: Twenty-four concepts were presented by the subcommittees. Ten concepts addressed four areas deemed most important: 1) PLT transfusion strategies to prevent and/or mitigate bleeding in neonates and patients with hematologic malignancies, 2) RBC transfusion trigger strategies to improve overall outcomes in different patient populations, 3) evaluation of optimal plasma:PLT:RBC ratios in trauma resuscitation, and 4) pathogen inactivation of PLTs to improve PLT transfusion safety. CONCLUSIONS: The proposal themes not only represent inquiries about the indications for transfusion, but also epitomize the lack of consensus when clinical practice lacks a strong evidence base. Ultimately, the purpose of this publication is to provide a "blueprint" of ideas for further development rather than endorse any one specific clinical trial design.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".