Impact of Transfusion on Cancer Growth and Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many years, transfusion of allogeneic red blood cells, platelet concentrates, and plasma units has been part of the standard therapeutic arsenal used along the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of patients with malignancies. Although the benefits of these blood products are not a matter of debate in specific pathological conditions associated with life-threatening low blood cell counts or bleeding, increasing clinical evidence is nevertheless suggesting that deliberate transfusion of these blood components may actually lead to negative clinical outcomes by affecting patient's immune defense, stimulating tumor growth, tethering, and dissemination. Rigorous preclinical and clinical studies are needed to dimension the clinical relevance, benefits, and risks of transfusion of blood components in cancer patients and understand the amplitude of problems. There is also a need to consider validating preparation methods of blood components for so far ignored biological markers, such as microparticles and biological response modifiers. Meanwhile, blood component transfusions should be regarded as a personalized medicine, taking into careful consideration the status and specificities of the patient, rather than as a routine hospital procedure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".