MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993670297 · doi:10.1182/hematology.2019000061

Preoperative anemia-screening clinics

2019· review· en· W2993670297 on OpenAlexaff
Yulia Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersPfizerAmgen
KeywordsMedicineAnemiaPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preoperative anemia is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and with increased risk of perioperative transfusion. It is an important and modifiable risk factor for surgical patients. For high-blood-loss surgery, preoperative anemia is defined as hemoglobin <13 g/dL for both male and female patients. Preoperative anemia is common, ranging from 25% to 40% in large observational studies. The most common treatable cause of preoperative anemia is iron-deficiency anemia; the initial laboratory tests should focus on making this diagnosis. Management of iron-deficiency anemia includes iron supplementation with IV iron therapy when oral iron is ineffective or not tolerated, there is severe anemia, and there is insufficient time to surgery (<4 weeks). In other situations, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents may be considered, particularly for those patients with multiple alloantibodies or religious objections to transfusion. To facilitate the diagnosis and management of preoperative anemia, establishment of preoperative anemia-screening clinics is essential. The goals of management of preoperative anemia are to treat anemia, reduce the need for transfusion, and improve 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations70
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematologySame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207