Do Children With an Allergic Transfusion Reaction Require Premedication For All Blood Products?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with a history of allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs) receive antihistamine premedication with or without hydrocortisone to prevent subsequent reactions. We aim to examine the frequency of developing ATRs to subsequent different blood product type transfusions. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of children who received blood product transfusions (packed red blood cells, platelets, frozen plasma, intravenous immunoglobin, albumin, and cryoprecipitate) and developed ATRs. Cases were identified through Transfusion Transmitted Injuries Surveillance System- Ontario database with a complementary chart review. Demographics and subsequent transfusions records were described. RESULTS: During this period, 35,925 blood products were transfused to 4153 patients. Thirty-eight ATRs were reported in 30 patients. All ATRs were minor except 1 anaphylaxis to albumin transfusion. Seven patients (23%) developed multiple ATRs, and all of them were of the same blood product type. A total of 60 subsequent different blood product types were transfused to the 7 patients who had multiple ATRs; none of those transfusions caused ATR. CONCLUSION: In children with a history of ATR, developing a reaction to a different blood product type is rare. Hence, premedicating those transfusions is not warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".