MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The transfusion-associated dyspnea prospective observation and laboratory assessment study: a protocol for investigating and disambiguating cardiopulmonary and high-grade febrile transfusion reactions in adults

2023· article· en· W4317821283 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark J. McVey, Samia Saeed, Reda Siddiqui, Chantal Armali, Amie Kron, Donald R. Branch, Davor Brinc, Liying Zhang, Nadine Shehata, Katerina Pavenski, Akash Gupta, Yulia Lin, Lani Lieberman, Jacob Pendergrast, Jeannie Callum, Christine Cserti‐Gazdewich

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Trials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalCanadian Blood ServicesMount Sinai HospitalToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanadian Blood Services
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineCardiorespiratory fitnessTransfusion-related acute lung injuryInternal medicineLungPulmonary edema

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cardiorespiratory transfusion reactions drive most transfusion-related morbidity and mortality. Transfusion-associated circulatory overload and transfusion-related acute lung injury have established causes, important impacts, mitigation options, and revised definitions, while non-conforming CRTRs fall into a category known as transfusion-associated dyspnea. Though procedures to investigate high-risk febrile transfusion reactions are typically rooted in detecting incompatibility or bacterial contamination, a common standard for examining CRTRs is lacking. CRTRs are further challenged by charting limitations, confounding (or enhanced susceptibility) by comorbidities, and/or overlapping insults. Deeper profiling of CRTRs could improve categorizations, reveal best-value diagnostics, and decipher the nature of (and/or minimize) reactions coded as TAD. Methods: The primary objective of this multi-center study is to reduce uncertainty in final conclusions drawn on CRTRs (cases), defined by dyspnea with objective disturbances and/or significant hemodynamic insults, with/without fever (±F). HRFTRs (controls) represent higher-grade F (T≥39°C or chills/rigors or lower-grade F (≥38°C by +Δ1°C) with non-respiratory effects). Patients (goal: 200) consent to additional sampling (≤24h post-TR) to identify contributing factors in case/control presentations, and in diagnostic groups (TRALI, TACO±F, TAD). Mechanistic axes of interest are cardiorenal, hemolytic, leukoagglutinating, biolipid, vasoactive, and inflammatory. Secondary goals include elucidation of real-life “insult-multiplicity” in CRTRs, tests of greatest yield, and distinguishing features in TRALI/TACO/TAD. Conclusions: A deep systematic CRTR probe may not only reduce diagnostic uncertainty but frame biomarker performance and pathologic signatures in definition-specific CRTRs. The re-classifiability or biology of TAD may be better understood. High-quality, mechanistic, true-to-quantity hemovigilance better exposes burdens and management options. Trial Registration: The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. with registry number NCT04267029.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical TrialsSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207