MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922904270 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2018.0605

Red Blood Cell Transfusion in Palliative Care: A Survey of Palliative Care Physicians

2019· article· en· W2922904270 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicolas Chin‐Yee, Joshua Taylor, James Downar, Peter Tanuseputro, Elianna Saidenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationPalliative careAnemiaBlood transfusionAdverse effectIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Red blood cell transfusion is one therapeutic option for the treatment of anemia. Current transfusion practices and factors influencing the decision to prescribe this therapy are not well understood. Objective: To explore current transfusion practices, attitudes, and factors that influence the decision to transfuse among palliative care physicians. Design: Self-administered questionnaire addressing clinical experiences and decision making pertaining to blood transfusion. Setting/Subjects: Specialist palliative care physicians at two Canadian academic centers. Measurements: Descriptive, presented as the number/proportion of respondents indicating a specific answer. Results: Of 62 physicians surveyed, 29 (47%) responded to the study questionnaire. For patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, respectively, 79% and 82% of respondents reported prescribing blood transfusion; 59% and 46% reported that they would seldom recommend its discontinuation. Factors influential in the decision to transfuse included symptoms of anemia (97%), bleeding (62%), low hemoglobin (52%, of whom 87% indicated a hemoglobin threshold <70 g/L), and pressure from patients/families (48%). Physicians routinely reassessed patients for symptomatic improvement following transfusion, but 72% did not use an objective symptom scale. Twenty-six (90%) respondents believed that transfusion provided symptomatic benefit; the majority had observed adverse reactions to transfusion. Most perceived a lack of evidence to guide transfusion therapy in palliative care, and 79% indicated willingness to enroll their patients in a trial aiming to address this question. Conclusions: Most palliative care specialists consider red blood cell transfusion to have a role in symptom management, but many clinical and nonclinical factors influence their decisions to provide or discontinue transfusions. Prospective clinical trials will likely be needed to inform transfusion practices in this population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207