Association between red blood cell transfusion and bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to determine the association between red blood cell transfusions (RBCT) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in neonates. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using data obtained from literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception till May 1, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected potentially relevant studies, and after data extraction, they assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were pooled using random-effects models in Review Manager 5.3. Subgroup-analysis was performed based on the number of transfusions and adjusted results. Results: Of the 1,011 identified records, 21 total case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were selected, which included a total of 6,567 healthy controls and 1,476 patients with BPD. The pooled unadjusted odds ratio ([OR], 4.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.31-6.97) and adjusted OR (5.11; 95% CI 3.11-8.4) showed significant association between RBCT and BPD. A substantial heterogeneity was noted, which could be due to different variables controlled for in each study. The subgroup analysis showed that heterogeneity may be partially explained by the extent of transfusion. Conclusion: The association between BPD and RBCT remains unclear based on the current data due to the substantial heterogeneity among the results. Well-designed studies are still needed in the future.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".