Anemia and red blood cell transfusion in critically ill cardiac patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anemia and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion occur frequently in hospitalized patients with cardiac disease. In this narrative review, we report the epidemiology of anemia and RBC transfusion in hospitalized adults and children (excluding premature neonates) with cardiac disease, and on the outcome of anemic and transfused cardiac patients. Both anemia and RBC transfusion are common in cardiac patients, and both are associated with mortality. RBC transfusion is the only way to rapidly treat severe anemia, but is not completely safe. In addition to hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, the determinant(s) that should drive a practitioner to prescribe a RBC transfusion to cardiac patients are currently unclear. In stable acyanotic cardiac patients, Hb level above 70 g/L in children and above 70 to 80 g/L in adults appears safe. In cyanotic children, Hb level above 90 g/L appears safe. The appropriate threshold Hb level for unstable cardiac patients and for children younger than 28 days is unknown. The optimal transfusion strategy in cardiac patients is not well characterized. The threshold at which the risk of anemia outweighs the risk of transfusion is not known. More studies are needed to determine when RBC transfusion is indicated in hospitalized patients with cardiac disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".