International survey on plasma transfusion practices in critically ill children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown heterogeneity in red blood cell transfusion practices. Although plasma transfusion is common in intensive care, there are no data on plasma transfusion practices in pediatric critical care units. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A scenario-based survey was sent to 718 pediatric critical care physicians working in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Respondents were asked to report their decisions regarding plasma transfusion practice with respect to four scenarios: pneumonia, septic shock, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and postoperative care after a Tetralogy of Fallot correction. RESULTS: The response rate was 187 of 718 (26%); half of the responders worked in North America. The proportion of physicians who transfused plasma to nonbleeding patients, solely based on abnormal international normalized ratio (INR), varied from 66% for pneumonia to 84% for TBI (p < 0.001). In such nonbleeding patients, the median INR threshold that would trigger plasma transfusion was 2.5 for pneumonia and septic shock patients and 2.0 for TBI and the cardiac postoperative patients (p < 0.001). Minor bleeding, minor surgery, insertion of a femoral line, hypotension, abnormal activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombocytopenia, and anemia levels were important determinants of plasma transfusion, whereas none of the respondents' demographic characteristics were important. CONCLUSION: More than two-thirds of responding pediatric critical care physicians prescribe plasma transfusions for nonbleeding critically ill children. Additionally, there is a significant variation in transfusion practice patterns with respect to plasma transfusion thresholds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".