What Laboratory Tests and Physiologic Triggers Should Guide the Decision to Administer a Platelet or Plasma Transfusion in Critically Ill Children and What Product Attributes Are Optimal to Guide Specific Product Selection? From the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative–Control/Avoidance of Bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To present consensus statements and supporting literature for plasma and platelet product variables and related laboratory testing for transfusions in general critically ill children from the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding. DESIGN: Systematic review and consensus conference of international, multidisciplinary experts in platelet and plasma transfusion management of critically ill children. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENTS: Critically ill pediatric patients at risk of bleeding and receiving plasma and/or platelet transfusions. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A panel of 10 experts developed evidence-based and, when evidence was insufficient, expert-based statements for laboratory testing and blood product attributes for platelet and plasma transfusions. These statements were reviewed and ratified by the 29 Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative - Control/Avoidance of Bleeding experts. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, from inception to December 2020. Consensus was obtained using the Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. Results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. We developed five expert consensus statements and two recommendations in answer to two questions: what laboratory tests and physiologic triggers should guide the decision to administer a platelet or plasma transfusion in critically ill children; and what product attributes are optimal to guide specific product selection? CONCLUSIONS: The Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding program provides some guidance and expert consensus for the laboratory and blood product attributes used for decision-making for plasma and platelet transfusions in critically ill pediatric patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".