MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109938134 · doi:10.1111/vox.13036

Neonatal red blood cell transfusion

2020· review· en· W3109938134 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

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNecrotizing enterocolitisBronchopulmonary dysplasiaRetinopathy of prematurityNeonatal intensive care unitBlood transfusionRed Blood Cell TransfusionPediatricsRed blood cellLow birth weightPopulationIntensive care medicineGestational agePregnancySurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transfusions are more common in premature infants with approximately 40% of low birth weight infants and up to 90% of extremely low birth weight infants requiring red blood cell transfusion. Although red blood cell transfusion can be life-saving in these preterm infants, it has been associated with higher rates of complications including necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity and possibly abnormal neurodevelopment. The main objective of this review is to assess current red blood cell transfusion practices in the neonatal intensive care unit, to summarize available neonatal transfusion guidelines published in different countries and to emphasize the wide variation in transfusion thresholds that exists for red blood cell transfusion. This review also addresses certain issues specific to red blood cell processing for the neonatal population including storage time, irradiation, cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention strategies and patient blood management. Future research avenues are proposed to better define optimal transfusion practice in neonatal intensive care units.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.296 · 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