MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Red Cell Transfusion Strategies in the ICU

2000· article· en· W2491205838 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineCritically illBlood transfusionAnemiaRed Blood Cell TransfusionGeneralizability theoryAdverse effectSAFERPopulationTransfusion therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transfusion of red blood cells continues to be an important therapy for treatment of anemia in intensive care settings. The critically ill are a population predisposed to the adverse outcomes of anemia and, as such, the risks imposed on them by transfusion therapy is one of great interest. Over the past decade there has been a shift in transfusion practice with guidelines being developed that promote more conservative and safer use of blood. The Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care (TRICC) trial clearly established the safety of a restrictive transfusion strategy, suggesting that physicians could easily minimize exposure to allogeneic RBCs by lowering their transfusion threshold. Further research will add to the generalizability of this study as well as explore the possible mechanism to explain why red cell transfusions did not improve outcomes in the critically ill.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207