Neurodevelopmental Outcome of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants Randomly Assigned to Restrictive or Liberal Hemoglobin Thresholds for Blood Transfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Extremely low birth weight infants frequently receive red cell transfusions. We sought to determine whether a restrictive versus liberal hemoglobin transfusion threshold results in differences in death or adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Extremely low birth weight infants previously enrolled in the Preterm Infants in Need of Transfusion Trial, a randomized, controlled trial of low versus high hemoglobin transfusion thresholds, were followed up at 18 to 21 months' corrected age. Erythrocyte transfusion was determined by an algorithm of low (restrictive) or high (liberal) hemoglobin transfusion thresholds, differing by 10 to 20 g/L and maintained until first hospital discharge. The primary composite outcome was death or the presence of cerebral palsy, cognitive delay, or severe visual or hearing impairment. RESULTS: Of 451 enrolled infants, the primary outcome was available in 430. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, found in 94 (45%) of 208 in the restrictive group and 82 (38%) of 213 in the liberal group. There were no statistically significant differences in preplanned secondary outcomes. However, the difference in cognitive delay (Mental Development Index score < 70) approached statistical significance. A posthoc analysis with cognitive delay redefined (Mental Development Index score < 85) showed a significant difference favoring the liberal threshold group. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining the hemoglobin of extremely low birth weight infants at these restrictive rather than liberal transfusion thresholds did not result in a statistically significant difference in combined death or severe adverse neurodevelopmental outcome.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".