An International Registry of Granulocyte Transfusions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Granulocyte transfusions are used to either treat or prevent life-threatening infections in neutropenic patients. Current evidence from clinical trials does not support or reject efficacy, nor guide practice. METHODS: A group of investigators have led the efforts to create an online registry to gather information on granulocyte transfusion practices from as broad a range of international settings. The data forms were adapted from an on-going study in England for electronic data management. Data is collected at the time of the request for granulocytes, weekly, at 28 days, and at 6 months. Information collected includes donor, granulocyte unit, patient and illness characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: The PROspective GRanulocyte usage and outcomEs Survey (ProGrES) is currently open for data entry. Centres across the UK have collected data on 80 subjects. Five institutions from 4 countries (2 from the US, 1 each from Brazil, and national services in Canada and France) are in the process of joining the study. Other countries have expressed interest. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to develop an international registry of granulocyte transfusions to characterise current practices and describe outcomes. This registry would provide a platform to explore the relationship between intervention and outcomes, and to generate evidence to inform granulocyte transfusion efficacy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it