Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly difficult to define the borders between areas of medical practice, yet there continues to be a tendency to develop organizations focusing on even smaller levels of specialization. Our own field of transfusion medicine is certainly not immune from this tendency. This is why it is especially gratifying to see an example of effective cooperation between groups. In this issue of TRANSFUSION, there is a valuable report that categorizes indications for therapeutic apheresis.1 The report has been jointly prepared and endorsed by the AABB and the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) through their respective committees. As the authors rightly state: “… it may be considered a model for collaborative efforts between professional medical societies with important mutual interests …”. The range of conditions cited in this paper is wide and encompasses patients primarily treated by physicians from many other specialties. Not only does this draw attention to the critical breadth and role of apheresis and transfusion in modern medicine, but it also focuses us on the patient as the primary beneficiary of our efforts. Indeed, the needs and welfare of the patient are explicit in the mission of both organizations. A key role for both societies is to help other physicians understand what our own disciplines can and, perhaps more importantly, cannot offer. Clearly, the AABB–ASFA paper is a valuable example of such guidance. We are also pleased that the report has been published in TRANSFUSION, as this clearly emphasizes the nature of the collaboration and will also broaden the immediate audience for the work. Fortunately, all journals are widely accessible to a very broad audience as a result of electronic publishing and indexing, so it is to be hoped that this information will ultimately influence a wide range of physicians. It is clear that there are many other therapies in which our two societies have common interests. The collection and use of HPCs, immune effectors and cells for genetic manipulation require the methods and skills of both specialties. Increasingly, transfusionists are dependent on blood components routinely collected by apheresis. This applies not only to platelets, but more and more to RBCs and of course to less common therapies such as granulocyte transfusions. Surely we must work together in these areas. The AABB believes it has much to offer in the development of quality-based standards, and in assessment against them. The AABB currently has standards relating to the collection and use of blood, the collection and use of HPCs, and perioperative blood collection and transfusion. ASFA has skills and expertise in the field of apheresis. Perhaps the two associations could consider the possibility of working jointly toward standards and assessment programs for therapeutic apheresis. In summary, we believe that our two associations have worked effectively and productively together to produce a useful guide for those responsible for prescribing and performing therapeutic apheresis. As we commit to continue to work together, we hope that this will indeed serve as a model for future interactions, not only between our own organizations, but also among many others.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".