MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365138368 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2211523

Effect of Donor Sex on Recipient Mortality in Transfusion

2023· article· en· W4365138368 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michaël Chassé, Dean Fergusson, Alan Tinmouth, Jason P. Acker, Iris Perelman, Angie Tuttle, Shane English, Steven Hawken, Alan J. Forster, Nadine Shehata, Kednapa Thavorn, Kumanan Wilson, Nancy Cober, Heather Maddison, Melanie Tokessy

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalOttawa HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health
KeywordsMedicineRandomizationConfidence intervalBlood transfusionRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioSurgeryObservational studyPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Conflicting observational evidence exists regarding the association between the sex of red-cell donors and mortality among transfusion recipients. Evidence to inform transfusion practice and policy is limited. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients undergoing red-cell transfusion to receive units of red cells from either male donors or female donors. Patients maintained their trial-group assignment throughout the trial period, including during subsequent inpatient and outpatient encounters. Randomization was conducted in a 60:40 ratio (male donor group to female donor group) to match the historical allocation of red-cell units from the blood supplier. The primary outcome was survival, with the male donor group as the reference group. RESULTS: A total of 8719 patients underwent randomization before undergoing transfusion; 5190 patients were assigned to the male donor group, and 3529 to the female donor group. At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the enrolled patients was 66.8±16.4 years. The setting of the first transfusion was as an inpatient in 6969 patients (79.9%), of whom 2942 (42.2%) had been admitted under a surgical service. The baseline hemoglobin level before transfusion was 79.5±19.7 g per liter, and patients received a mean of 5.4±10.5 units of red cells in the female donor group and 5.1±8.9 units in the male donor group (difference, 0.3 units; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.1 to 0.7). Over the duration of the trial, 1141 patients in the female donor group and 1712 patients in the male donor group died. In the primary analysis of overall survival, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.06). CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed no significant difference in survival between a transfusion strategy involving red-cell units from female donors and a strategy involving red-cell units from male donors. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; iTADS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03344887.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations30
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207