Reproduction of chest pain by palpation: diagnostic accuracy in suspected pulmonary embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The impact of the age of stored red blood cells on mortality in patients sustaining traumatic injuries requiring transfusion of blood products is unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe the available literature on the use of older versus newer blood in trauma patient populations. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Lilac and the Cochrane Database for published studies comparing the transfusion of newer versus older red blood cells in adult patients sustaining traumatic injuries. Studies included for review reported on trauma patients receiving transfusions of packed red blood cells, identified the age of stored blood that was transfused and reported patient mortality as an end point. We extracted data using a standardized form and assessed study quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Seven studies were identified (6780 patients) from 3936 initial search results. Four studies reported that transfusion of older blood was independently associated with increased mortality in trauma patients, while 3 studies did not observe any increase in patient mortality with the use of older versus newer blood. Three studies associated the transfusion of older blood with adverse patient outcomes, including longer stay in the intensive care unit, complicated sepsis, pneumonia and renal dysfunction. Studies varied considerably in design, volumes of blood transfused and definitions applied for old and new blood. Conclusion: The impact of the age of stored packed red blood cells on mortality in trauma patients is inconclusive. Future investigations are warranted.
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 | 0.010 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".