Red blood cell transfusion and mortality effect in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a devastating disease that leads to important morbidity and mortality in a young patient population. Anemia following aSAH is common and may be exacerbated by the treatments instituted by clinicians as part of standard care. The role and optimal thresholds for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in this patient population remains unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review of the literature using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews (including Cochrane Central databases) using a comprehensive search strategy for observational and interventional studies of RBC transfusion in aSAH. Our primary objective is to evaluate the association of RBC transfusion with mortality in aSAH patients. Secondary objectives include a) determining associations between RBC transfusion and poor neurologic outcome, b) defining an optimal RBC transfusion threshold in aSAH patients, and c) describing complications associated with RBC transfusion in aSAH patients. We plan a descriptive reporting of all included citations including study characteristics, methodological quality, and reported outcomes. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity observed between studies will be described. If appropriate, meta-analyses of suitable studies and interpretation of their results will be performed. Effect measures will be converted to obtain relative risks and odds ratios (RR and ORs) with 95% confidence intervals and pooled according to study design (randomized trials and observational studies respectively) using a random effects model. DISCUSSION: This review will summarize the existing observational and trial evidence regarding RBC transfusion in aSAH patients. The analytical plan has made considerations for different study designs, both observational and interventional in nature, and will summarize the best available evidence to inform the end user and policy and guideline producers and to highlight areas in need of further study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014014806.
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 | 0.039 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.003 |
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".