A comparison of intra-operative cell-saving strategies upon immediate post-operative outcomes after CPB-assisted cardiac procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiotomy suction has been associated with adverse outcomes under routine conditions in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We hypothesized that the routine use of a cell saver (CS) in place of the cardiotomy sucker would have no negative impact on transfusion rate (TR), chest tube drainage (CTD), ventilation time (VT) or intensive care unit length of stay (ICULOS) while avoiding the detrimental effects of cardiotomy suction. Retrospective data were collected from 69 patients where a cell saver was not used (NCS). Prospective data were collected from 219 patients who were followed after the implementation of an intra-operative cell saver. No significant increase in transfusion rate, chest tube drainage or ventilation time was found between the NCS group and the CS group. However, post-operative hemoglobin concentrations were significantly higher in the CS group (0.0001) and the CS group spent significantly less time in the ICU (p=0.018).
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".