MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Age of Blood Does Not Affect Quality of Life and Hemoglobin: N– of −1 Trials in Transfusion-Dependent Patients,

2011· article· en· W2595919366 on OpenAlexaff
Maayan Seitelbach, Ian Chin‐Yee, Jeff Kinney, Justin Chia, Katrina Ormond, Jeff Mahon, Guangyong Zou, Larry Stitt, Cyrus C. Hsia

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsVictoria HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood transfusionHemoglobinAnemiaQuality of life (healthcare)Adverse effectVisual analogue scaleSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3369 Introduction Red blood cell concentrates (RBCs) are stored for up to 42 days. Prolonged storage of RBCs results in “the storage lesion” which has been associated with adverse outcomes in patients with critical illness, sepsis, and post-cardiac surgery. No studies have assessed the impact of the storage lesion on the quality of life (QoL) of patients who require chronic transfusion support. This study assessed the effects of fresh versus standard issue blood on QoL and follow-up hemoglobin (Hb) in transfusion-dependent patients. Methods Transfusion-dependent patients age 18 years or older, were invited to participate in an N-of-1 trial. Transfusion dependence required at least one unit of RBCs every four weeks. Each participant was randomly assigned four fresh (less than seven days of storage) and four standard issue (seven to 42 days of storage) blood transfusions. Investigators, study participants, treating physicians, and nurses were blinded to product allocation. A questionnaire containing a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia questionnaire (FACT-An) was completed prior to and 24 hours after each transfusion. Changes were calculated as post-transfusion scores minus pre-transfusion scores. Hemoglobin levels were measured at each subsequent transfusion. Within-subject (each participant) between-treatment comparisons of QoL scores and hemoglobin levels were assessed by unpaired t-tests among participants who completed at least six transfusions. Between-group changes in QoL scores for all participants were assessed by paired t-tests and a mixed model approach. Results Twenty patients were enrolled (mean age 66.8 years, 12 females). Underlying diagnoses included myelodysplastic syndromes (12), β-thalassemia (3), myeloproliferative neoplasms (3), Diamond-Blackfan anemia (1), and chronic anemia of undetermined etiology (1). Mean ages of fresh and standard blood were 4.0 days and 23.2 days, respectively. Nine participants completed at least six transfusions. Among remaining participants, nine were non-compliant, and two died. All data were analysed in the between-group comparisons. There were no statistically significant differences in the effect of standard blood and fresh blood on the eight QoL parameters assessed in all analyses. This was seen in the within subject between-group analysis as well as the between-group analysis. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in the effect of standard blood and fresh blood on follow-up Hb levels. Conclusions No significant differences in QoL parameters or follow-up Hb levels were observed in patients receiving fresh versus standard issue blood. These results suggest that local blood transfusion laboratory practices do not need to be altered for transfusion-dependent patient populations. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the QoL effects of age of blood on transfusion-dependent patients using N-of-1 trials. While larger studies are needed to confirm these findings, our results demonstrate that N-of-1 studies are feasible and informative in the management of individual patients. The randomized controlled multiple crossover design of N-of-1 studies may be also useful in addressing questions in transfusion medicine regarding differences in the quality of blood products. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicBlood transfusion and management→French-language works237,207→