MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796066184 · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.04.007

Clinical trials evaluating red blood cell transfusion thresholds: An updated systematic review and with additional focus on patients with cardiovascular disease

2018· review· en· W2796066184 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey L. Carson, Simon Stanworth, John H. Alexander, Nareg H. Roubinian, Dean Fergusson, Darrell J. Triulzi, Shaun G. Goodman, Sunil V. Rao, Carolyn Dorée, Paul C. Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Heart Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversité de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaSt. Michael's HospitalOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionBlood transfusionConfidence intervalClinical trialInternal medicineDiseaseRandomized controlled trialRelative riskIntensive care medicineCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations138
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Heart JournalSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207