MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966593132 · doi:10.1182/blood.2019000773

Effect of donor, component, and recipient characteristics on hemoglobin increments following red blood cell transfusion

2019· article· en· W2966593132 on OpenAlexaff
Nareg H. Roubinian, Colleen Plimier, Jennifer P. Woo, Catherine Lee, Roberta Bruhn, Gabriel J. Escobar, Steven Kleinman, Darrell J. Triulzi, Edward L. Murphy, Michael P. Busch

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHemoglobinYield (engineering)MedicineBlood transfusionBlood componentRed Blood Cell TransfusionTransfusion reactionRed blood cellImmunologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

< .01). For hemoglobin increments 24 hours after transfusion, the coefficient of determination for the generalized estimating equation models was 0.25, with an estimated correlation between actual and predicted values of 0.5. Collectively, blood donor demographic characteristics, collection and processing methods, and recipient characteristics accounted for significant variation in hemoglobin increments related to RBC transfusion. Multivariable modeling allows the prediction of changes in hemoglobin using donor-, component-, and patient-level characteristics. Accounting for these factors will be critical for future analyses of donor and component factors, including genetic polymorphisms, on posttransfusion increments and other patient outcomes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations131
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207