MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122589503 · doi:10.1111/trf.16285

Adapting to supply‐and‐demand emerging trends for antigen‐negative red blood cell units

2021· article· en· W3122589503 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Trépanier, Marie‐Claire Chevrier, Jessica Constanzo Yanez, Nadia Baillargeon, Christine St‐Pierre, Josée Perreault

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsHéma-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypingAntigenRed blood cellImmunologyMedicineBlood collectionBiologyEmergency medicineGeneticsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A global downtrend in blood usage has been observed by many countries, while the demand for antigen-negative red blood cell (RBC) units used in antigen-matched transfusions keeps increasing. The declining number of units collected exposes blood providers to a rapidly evolving supply challenge. METHODS: This study was conducted retrospectively with use of internal data analysis to weigh Québec's situation regarding global and antigen-negative RBC demand, to measure the effects of community-directed recruitment and blood drives, and to evaluate the benefits of mass-scale RBC genotyping. RESULTS: Our findings confirm a global RBC usage downtrend of over 20% total in the past 10 years with a steady antigen-negative usage and highlight the most requested negative antigen combinations. Our data also show our +39.5% progress regarding the number of Black donors recruited for antigen matching of patients with sickle cell disease in the past 3 years, as well as a constantly growing number of just-in-time blood collection for complex orders. Finally, our data summarize the efficiency of our mass-scale RBC genotyping efforts. CONCLUSION: Altogether, this study confirms the demand trends for regular and antigen-negative RBC units in Québec and the efficient effects of our recruitment and typing strategies.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207