MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210459888 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005393

Transfusion-Associated Delirium in Children: No Difference Between Short Storage Versus Standard Issue RBCs

2022· article· en· W4210459888 on OpenAlexaff
Chani Traube, Marisa Tucci, Marianne E. Nellis, K. Leslie Avery, Patrick S. McQuillen, Julie C. Fitzgerald, Jennifer A. Muszynski, Jill M. Cholette, Adam J. Schwarz, Erika Stalets, Maureen A. Quaid, Sheila J. Hanson, Jacques Lacroix, Ron Reeder, Philip C. Spinella

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumComa (optics)Randomized controlled trialAnesthesiaBlood transfusionProspective cohort studySurgeryIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Primary objective is to determine if transfusion of short storage RBCs compared with standard issue RBCs reduced risk of delirium/coma in critically ill children. Secondary objective is to assess if RBC transfusion was independently associated with delirium/coma. DESIGN: This study was performed in two stages. First, we compared patients receiving either short storage or standard RBCs in a multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled trial. Then, we compared all transfused patients in the randomized controlled trial with a single-center cohort of nontransfused patients matched for confounders of delirium/coma. SETTING: Twenty academic PICUs who participated in the Age of Transfused Blood in Critically Ill Children trial. PATIENTS: Children 3 days to 16 years old who were transfused RBCs within the first 7 days of admission. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to either short storage RBC study arm (defined as RBCs stored for up to seven days) or standard issue RBC study arm. In addition, subjects were screened for delirium prior to transfusion and every 12 hours after transfusion for up to 3 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome measure was development of delirium/coma within 3 days of initial transfusion. Additional outcome measures were dose-response relationship between volume of RBCs transfused and delirium/coma, and comparison of delirium/coma rates between transfused patients and individually matched nontransfused patients. We included 146 subjects in the stage I analysis; 69 were randomized to short storage RBCs and 77 to standard issue. There was no significant difference in delirium/coma development between study arms (79.5% vs 70.1%; p = 0.184). In the stage II analysis, adjusted odds for delirium in the transfused cohort was more than eight-fold higher than in the nontransfused matched cohort, even after controlling for hemoglobin (adjusted odds ratio, 8.9; CI, 2.8-28.4; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RBC transfusions (and not anemia) are independently associated with increased odds of subsequent delirium/coma. However, storage age of RBCs does not affect delirium risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207