Transfusion of <scp>ABO</scp>‐group identical red blood cells following uncrossmatched transfusion does not lead to higher mortality in civilian trauma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Questions persist about the safety of switching non-group O recipients of group O uncrossmatched red blood cells (RBC) or low titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) to ABO-identical RBCs during their resuscitation. METHODS: The database of an earlier nine-center study of transfusing incompatible plasma to trauma patients was reanalyzed. The patients were divided into three groups based on 24-h RBC transfusion: (1) group O patients who received group O RBC/LTOWB units (control group, n = 1203), (2) non-group O recipients who received only group O units (n = 646), (3) non-group O recipients who received at least one unit of group O and non-group O units (n = 562). Fixed marginal effect of receipt of non-O RBC units on 6- and 24-h and 30-day mortality was calculated. RESULTS: The non-O patients who received only group O RBCs received fewer RBC/LTOWB units and had slightly but significantly lower injury severity score compared to control group; non-group O patients who received both group O and non-O units received significantly more RBC/LTOWB units and had a slightly but significantly higher injury severity score compared to control group. In the multivariate analysis, the non-O patients who received only group O RBCs had significantly higher mortality at 6-h compared to the controls; the non-group O recipients of O and non-O RBCs did not demonstrate higher mortality. At 24-h and 30-days, there were no differences in survival between the groups. CONCLUSION: Providing non-group O RBCs to non-group O trauma patients who also received group O RBC units is not associated with higher mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".