MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160050610 · doi:10.21037/aob-21-4

Bacterial culture of platelets with the large volume delayed sampling approach: a narrative review

2021· review· en· W3160050610 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Delage, France Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Blood · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsHéma-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativePlateletVolume (thermodynamics)Sampling (signal processing)HistoryMedicineArtLiteratureComputer scienceInternal medicinePhysicsComputer visionThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacterial contamination of platelets leading to post-transfusion sepsis (PTS) represents a significant risk to patients, even in the era of bacterial culture using a sample obtained 24 hours post-collection and inoculated into a single blood culture bottle. Various approaches are available for mitigation of this risk, one of which is large volume delayed sampling (LVDS) culture. LVDS aims to increase detection of contaminated platelets compared to 24-hour, single aerobic bottle culture by increasing the sample volume in order to inoculate two or more blood culture bottles, and increasing the delay before sampling, thus allowing additional time for bacteria present in a contaminated platelet product to multiply before sampling. Three establishments have implemented LVDS as their strategy for enhancing safety of platelets. Their collective experience points to a reduction in the residual risk of PTS following transfusion of contaminated platelets when compared to historical data. LVDS as a strategy to enhance platelet safety has the advantage of simplicity when compared to various two-step approaches that involve an early culture followed by either re-culture or rapid testing. With a seven-day shelf-life, LVDS leads to decreased platelet outdates when compared to 24-hour single bottle culture with a five-day shelf-life, and an increased age of platelets at transfusion.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of BloodSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207