MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Red Blood Cell Transfusion: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AABB*

2012· review· en· W2136098489 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey L. Carson, Brenda J. Grossman, Steven Kleinman, Alan Tinmouth, Marisa B. Marques, Mark Fung, John B. Holcomb, Lewis J. Kaplan, Louis M. Katz, Sunil V. Rao, John D. Roback, Aryeh Shander, Robert S. Weinstein, Swinton McLaughlin, Benjamin Djulbegović

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineStroke (engine)Intensive care medicineBlood transfusionMyocardial infarctionClinical trialAnemiaEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DESCRIPTION: Although approximately 85 million units of red blood cells (RBCs) are transfused annually worldwide, transfusion practices vary widely. The AABB (formerly, the American Association of Blood Banks) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations about hemoglobin concentration thresholds and other clinical variables that trigger RBC transfusions in hemodynamically stable adults and children. METHODS: These guidelines are based on a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating transfusion thresholds. We performed a literature search from 1950 to February 2011 with no language restrictions. We examined the proportion of patients who received any RBC transfusion and the number of RBC units transfused to describe the effect of restrictive transfusion strategies on RBC use. To determine the clinical consequences of restrictive transfusion strategies, we examined overall mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac events, pulmonary edema, stroke, thromboembolism, renal failure, infection, hemorrhage, mental confusion, functional recovery, and length of hospital stay. RECOMMENDATION 1: The AABB recommends adhering to a restrictive transfusion strategy (7 to 8 g/dL) in hospitalized, stable patients (Grade: strong recommendation; high-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: The AABB suggests adhering to a restrictive strategy in hospitalized patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease and considering transfusion for patients with symptoms or a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL or less (Grade: weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: The AABB cannot recommend for or against a liberal or restrictive transfusion threshold for hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with the acute coronary syndrome (Grade: uncertain recommendation; very low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: The AABB suggests that transfusion decisions be influenced by symptoms as well as hemoglobin concentration (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,091
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207