Epidemiology of therapeutic apheresis with a multidisciplinary approach at a high volume pediatric center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic apheresis (TA) is used inconsistently in pediatric populations. We seek to define our multidisciplinary institutional practice. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients receiving TA from January 1, 2012 through October 31, 2015. Data collected included demographics, American Society of Apheresis (ASFA) indication, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: Over 46 months, 1198 TA procedures were conducted on 289 patients ranging in age from 5 months to 21 years with weights ranging from 4.76 to 170.3 kg (16 procedures in patients <10 kg). The procedures were 86% therapeutic plasma exchange, 10% red blood cell exchange, 4% extracorporeal photopheresis, and 5 leukocytapheresis procedures. TA was initiated in different clinical environments: 41% outpatient, 37% intensive care, 15% general inpatient, and 7% operating room. The ASFA category (6th edition) indications for the 1198 procedures included: 44% category I, 25% category II, 23% category III, a single category IV procedure, and the remainder (8%) uncategorized by ASFA. The rate of procedure failure and procedure-related mortality are 1 and 0%, respectively. Case mortality rate was 4%. CONCLUSION: At a large volume pediatric hospital, TA is commonly used and can be performed safely in a variety of settings by a multidisciplinary team. This demographic review catalogs the number and type of procedures performed as a second-line therapy or on the basis of limited evidence. Additional collaborative investigation is needed to evaluate unique implications of TA in pediatrics to maximize efficacy while preserving safety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".