MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083535235 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000002903

Group A emergency-release plasma in trauma patients requiring massive transfusion

2020· article· en· W3083535235 on OpenAlexafffund
Amory de Roulet, Jeffrey D. Kerby, Jordan A. Weinberg, Richard H. Lewis, Jay Hudgins, Ira A. Shulman, Erin E. Fox, John B. Holcomb, Karen J. Brasel, Eileen M. Bulger, Mitchell J. Cohen, Bryan A. Cotton, Timothy C. Fabian, Terence O’Keeffe, Sandro Rizoli, Thomas M. Scalea, Martin A. Schreiber, Kenji Inaba

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioConfidence intervalBlood transfusionComplicationSubgroup analysisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Both groups A and AB plasma have been approved for emergency-release transfusion in acutely bleeding trauma patients before blood grouping being performed. The safety profile associated with this practice has not been well characterized, particularly in patients requiring massive transfusion. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the Pragmatic, Randomized, Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios trial examined whether exposure to group A emergency-release plasma (ERP) was noninferior to group AB ERP. We also examined patients whose blood groups were compatible with group A ERP versus patients whose blood groups were incompatible with group A ERP. Outcomes included 30-day mortality and complication rates including systemic inflammatory response syndrome, infection, renal injury, pulmonary dysfunction, and thromboembolism. RESULTS: Of the 680 patients predicted to receive a massive transfusion, 584 (85.9%) received at least 1 U of ERP. Of the 584 patients analyzed, 462 (79.1%) received group AB and 122 (20.9%) received group A ERP. Using a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.35 as the noninferiority margin, transfusion with group A versus group AB ERP was not associated with increased thromboembolic rates (HR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.90). Mortality (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.45) and nonfatal complication rates (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.87-1.77) were inconclusive. In the subgroup analysis, transfusion with incompatible ERP (group B or AB patients receiving group A ERP) was not associated with increased nonfatal complications (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80-1.30). There were no reported hemolytic transfusion reactions. CONCLUSION: The use of ERP is common in patients requiring massive transfusion and facilitates the rapid balanced resuscitation of patients who have sustained blood loss. Group A ERP is an acceptable option for patients requiring massive transfusion, especially if group AB ERP is not readily available. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level IV; Prognostic, level III.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207