Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of pretransfusion tests have been developed to improve the safety and effectiveness of transfusion. Recently, a number of traditional tests have been shown to offer limited clinical benefit and have been eliminated in many facilities. A survey of pretransfusion test practices was distributed to 116 hospital transfusion services. Routine test practices and facility size were analyzed. Ninety-one responses were received. Many smaller laboratories include tests such as anti-A,B, an autocontrol, and DAT, and immediate spin and 37 degrees Celsius microscopic readings. Nine percent never perform an Rh control with anti-D typing on patient samples. Various antibody screening and crossmatch methods are utilized. Individual laboratory test practices should be periodically assessed to ensure that they comply with standards, represent the recognized best practice, and are cost-effective. The survey responses indicate that many laboratories perform tests that are not necessary or cost-effective. These facilities should review their processes to determine which tests contribute to transfusion safety. Smaller facilities may be reluctant to change or lack the expertise necessary for this decision making and often continue to perform tests that have been eliminated in larger facilities. Consultation with larger hospital transfusion services may provide guidance for this change.
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".