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

Preoperative anemia-screening clinics

2019· review· en· W2993670297 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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