Transfusion practice in dogs and cats: an Internet‐based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize and compare current canine and feline transfusion practices at private referral hospitals (PRH) and veterinary teaching hospitals (VTH), including information regarding blood donor screening; blood product collection, storage, and administration; recipient screening; and monitoring during transfusions. DESIGN: Internet-based survey. SUBJECTS: Sixty-five board-certified specialist veterinarians, 3 veterinarians, and 5 veterinary technicians from 53 PRH and 20 VTH. METHODS: A survey was disseminated via email LIST-SERVs; 1 survey response per hospital was included. MAIN RESULTS: Survey results revealed that PRH more commonly obtained canine and feline blood products solely from blood banks (P < 0.05) and VTH more commonly used hospital-run donor programs (P < 0.05). Canine cryo-poor plasma was more likely to be stored by VTH compared to PRH (P = 0.018) and VTH were more likely to store canine fresh platelet products for >72 hours (P = 0.046). The use of client-owned canine donors (P = 0.043), administration of precollection 1-deamino-8-d-arginine vasopressin to canine donors (P = 0.041), and storage of blood products in a dedicated refrigerator (P = 0.003) and -20°C or -80°C freezer (P = 0.044) were more common in VTH than PRH. However, the use of a refrigerator freezer (P = 0.001), single bag canine collection systems (P = 0.021), and agglutination cards for feline blood typing (P = 0.032), as well as warming of blood products prior to administration (P = 0.021) were more commonly reported by PRH compared to VTH. CONCLUSIONS: Although some transfusion practices including the method and length of storage of blood products, use and screening of blood donors, and administration methods varied between VTH and PRH, most transfusion practices were similar. The information reported from this survey could aid the development of future veterinary transfusion consensus statements.
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) | 0.000 | 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".