MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887709695 · doi:10.1111/tme.12505

Best practice in critical care: anaemia in acute and critical illness

2018· review· en· W2887709695 on OpenAlexaff
Annemarie B Docherty, AF Turgeon, Timothy Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritical illnessIntensive care medicineSepsisIntensive care unitDiseasePopulationRed Blood Cell TransfusionPathophysiologyBlood transfusionCritically illPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Anaemia is common in critical illness, and standard treatment is red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, typically using a restrictive transfusion threshold of 70 g L −1 . However, there are subgroups of patients in whom it is biologically plausible that a higher transfusion threshold may be beneficial, namely, acute sepsis, traumatic brain injury and coexisting cardiovascular disease. In this review article, we will discuss the pathophysiology of anaemia, as well as its prevalence and time course. We will explore the limitations of using haemoglobin concentration as a surrogate for oxygen delivery and the concept of the critical haemoglobin concentration. We will then discuss transfusion thresholds for the general intensive care unit (ICU) population and specific subgroups.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusion MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207