Health‐related quality of life after restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion for cardiac surgery: Sub‐study from a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III (TRICS III), a multi-center randomized controlled trial, demonstrated clinical non-inferiority for restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, it is uncertain if transfusion strategy affects long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this planned sub-study of Australian patients in TRICS III, we sought to determine the non-inferiority of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy on long-term HRQOL and to describe clinical outcomes 24 months postoperatively. The restrictive strategy involved transfusing RBCs when hemoglobin was <7.5 g/dl; the transfusion triggers in the liberal group were: <9.5 g/L intraoperatively, <9.5 g/L in intensive care, or <8.5 g/dl on the ward. HRQOL assessments were performed using the 36-item short form survey version 2 (SF-36v2). Primary outcome was non-inferiority of summary measures of SF-36v2 at 12 months, (non-inferiority margin: -0.25 effect size; restrictive minus liberal scores). Secondary outcomes included non-inferiority of HRQOL at 18 and 24 months. RESULTS: Six hundred seventeen Australian patients received allocated randomization; HRQOL data were available for 208/311 in restrictive and 217/306 in liberal group. After multiple imputation, non-inferiority of restrictive transfusion at 12 months was not demonstrated for HRQOL, and the estimates were directionally in favor of liberal transfusion. Non-inferiority also could not be concluded at 18 and 24 months. Sensitivity analyses supported these results. There were no differences in quality-adjusted life years or composite clinical outcomes up to 24 months after surgery. DISCUSSION: The non-inferiority of a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy was not established for long-term HRQOL in this dataset.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".