Application of unsupervised machine learning to identify areas of blood product wastage in transfusion medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wastage of blood products can be a significant cost to blood banks. However, the cause of wastage is often complex and makes it difficult to determine wastage-associated factors. Machine learning techniques may be useful tools to investigate these complex associations. We investigated whether unsupervised machine learning can identify patterns associated with wastage in our blood bank. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on red blood cells, platelets and frozen products were obtained from the laboratory information system of the Central Zone Blood Transfusion Services at Nova Scotia Health Authority. A total of 879 532 transactions were analysed by association rule mining, a type of machine learning algorithm. Associations with lift scores greater than 25 and with clinical relevance were flagged for further examination. RESULTS: Association rule mining returned a total of 3355 associations related to wastage. Several notable associations were identified. For example, certain wards were associated with wastage due to thawing unused frozen products. Other examples included association between smaller blood banks and evening work shifts with product wastage due to excess time outside the laboratory or returning products with high temperatures. CONCLUSION: This paper demonstrates the effective use of unsupervised machine learning for the purpose of investigating wastage in a large blood bank. The use of association rule mining was able to identify wastage factors, which can help guide quality improvement initiatives. This technique can be automated to provide rapid analysis of complex associations contributing to wastage and could be utilized in modern blood banks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".