Transfusion in the intensive care unit: strategies under scrutiny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transfusion of blood products continues to be an important technique for resuscitating patients in intensive care settings. A number of provocative studies have been published in the past year which examine the transfusion of blood products and alternatives. The Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care (TRICC) trial clearly established the safety of a restrictive transfusion strategy, thereby suggesting that physicians could easily minimize exposure to allogeneic red blood cells by lowering their transfusion threshold. The crystalloids versus colloids debate was also fueled by a number of studies this past year, specifically a meta-analysis which reported a 4% increase in absolute risk of mortality associated with resuscitation therapy using colloids. A recent study demonstrated that erythropoietin is a promising therapy in the intensive care. We can anticipate the results of a trial, currently underway, for further evidence of the use of smaller doses of erythropoietin in the ICU setting.
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 | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".