MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804545068 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-02-831289

Hemostatic efficacy of pathogen-inactivated vs untreated platelets: a randomized controlled trial

2018· review· en· W2804545068 on OpenAlexaff
Pieter F. van der Meer, Paula F. Ypma, Nan van Geloven, Joost A. van Hilten, Rinie J. van Wordragen-Vlaswinkel, Okke Eissen, Jaap Jan Zwaginga, Michael Trus, Erik A.M. Beckers, Peter A.W. te Boekhorst, Alan Tinmouth, Yulia Lin, Cyrus C. Hsia, David Lee, Philip J. Norris, Raymond P. Goodrich, Anneke Brand, Tor Hervig, Nancy M. Heddle, Johanna G. van der Bom, Jean‐Louis Kerkhoffs

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreHealth Sciences CentreKingston General HospitalOttawa HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPlateletConfidence intervalInternal medicinePlatelet transfusionIntention-to-treat analysisSurgeryClinical endpointBlood transfusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= .19 for noninferiority). Transfusion increment parameters were ∼50% lower in the intervention arm. There was no difference in the proportion of patients developing HLA class I alloantibodies. In conclusion, the noninferiority criterion for pathogen-inactivated platelets was met in the intention-to-treat analysis. This finding was not demonstrated in the per-protocol analysis. This trial was registered at The Netherlands National Trial Registry as #NTR2106 and at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02783313.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations84
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207