MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792257527 · doi:10.1111/trf.14520

Critical developments of 2017: a review of the literature from selected topics in transfusion. A committee report from the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee

2018· review· en· W2792257527 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa M. Cushing, James Kelley, Ellen Klapper, David F. Friedman, Ruchika Goel, Nancy M. Heddle, Courtney K. Hopkins, Julie Katz Karp, Monica B. Pagano, Ajay Perumbeti, Glenn Ramsey, John D. Roback, Joseph E. Schwartz, Beth H. Shaz, Philip C. Spinella, Claudia S. Cohn

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfusion medicineApheresisMedicineBlood transfusionIntensive care medicineMEDLINEPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicinePlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The AABB compiles an annual synopsis of the published literature covering important developments in the field of transfusion medicine. An abridged version of this work is being made available in TRANSFUSION, with the full-length report available as Appendix S1 (available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Papers published in late 2017 and 2018 are included, as well as earlier papers cited for background. Although this synopsis is comprehensive, it is not exhaustive, and some papers may have been excluded or missed. RESULTS: The following topics are covered: "big data" and "omics" studies, emerging infections and testing, platelet transfusion and pathogen reduction, transfusion therapy and coagulation, transfusion approach to hemorrhagic shock and mass casualties, therapeutic apheresis, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. CONCLUSION: This synopsis may be a useful educational tool.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207