Blood conservation strategies to reduce the need for red blood cell transfusion in critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anemia commonly affects critically ill patients. The causes are multifactorial and include acute blood loss, blood loss from diagnostic testing and blunted red blood cell production. Blood transfusions are frequently given to patients in intensive care units to treat low hemoglobin levels due to either acute blood loss or subacute anemia associated with critical illness. Although blood transfusion is a life-saving therapy, evidence suggests that it may be associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. A number of blood conservation strategies exist that may mitigate anemia in hospital patients and limit the need for transfusion. These strategies include the use of hemostatic agents, hemoglobin substitutes and blood salvage techniques, the reduction of blood loss associated with diagnostic testing, the use of erythropoietin and the use of restrictive blood transfusion triggers. Strategies to reduce blood loss associated with diagnostic testing and the use of hemostatic agents and erythropoietin result in higher hemoglobin levels, but they have not been shown to reduce the need for blood transfusions or to improve clinical outcomes. Lowering the hemoglobin threshold at which blood is transfused will reduce the need for transfusions and is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality among most critically ill patients without active cardiac disease. Further research is needed to determine the potential roles for other blood conservation strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".