Study protocol of associated criteria used in investigating septic transfusion reactions (STRs): A scoping review about available evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Assessment criteria for septic transfusion reactions (STRs) are variable around the world. A scoping review will be carried out to find out, explore and map existing literature on STRs associated criteria. METHODS: This scoping review will include indexed and grey literatures available in English or French language from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021. Literature search will be conducted using four electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Embase via Ovid), and grey literatures accompanying the research questions and objectives. Based on the inclusion criteria, studies will be independently screened by two reviewers for title, abstract, and full text. Extracted data will be presented in tabular form followed by a narrative description of inputs corresponding to research objectives and questions.
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 | 0.084 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.012 |
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".