Associations between <scp>ABO</scp> non‐identical platelet transfusions and patient <scp>outcomes—A</scp> multicenter retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to platelet availability limitations, platelet units ABO mismatched to recipients are often transfused. However, since platelets express ABO antigens and are collected in plasma which may contain ABO isohemagglutinins, it remains controversial as to whether ABO non-identical platelet transfusions could potentially pose harm and/or have reduced efficacy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The large 4-year publicly available Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-III (REDS-III) database was used to investigate patient outcomes associated with ABO non-identical platelet transfusions. Outcomes included mortality, sepsis, and subsequent platelet transfusion requirements. RESULTS: Following adjustment for possible confounding factors, no statistically significant association between ABO non-identical platelet transfusion and increased risk of mortality was observed in the overall cohort of 21,176 recipients. However, when analyzed by diagnostic category and recipient ABO group, associations with increased mortality for major mismatched transfusions were noted in two of eight subpopulations. Hematology/Oncology blood group A and B recipients (but not group O) showed a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 1.29 (95%CI: 1.03-1.62) and intracerebral hemorrhage group O recipients (but not groups A and B) showed a HR of 1.75 (95%CI: 1.10-2.80). Major mismatched transfusions were associated with increased odds of receiving additional platelet transfusion each post-transfusion day (through day 5) regardless of the recipient blood group. DISCUSSION: We suggest that prospective studies are needed to determine if specific patient populations would benefit from receiving ABO identical platelet units. Our findings indicate that ABO-identical platelet products minimize patient exposure to additional platelet doses.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".