Special Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaps remain in our understanding of the contribution of bypass-related practices associated with red blood cell (RBC) transfusions after cardiac surgery. Variability exists in the reporting of bypass-related practices in the peer-reviewed literature. In an effort to create uniformity in reporting, a draft statement outlining proposed minimal criteria for reporting cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)-related contributions (i.e., RBC data collection/documentation, clinical considerations for transfusions, equipment details, and clinical endpoints) was presented in conjunction with the American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology’s (AmSECT’s) 2014 Quality and Outcomes Meeting (Baltimore, MD). Based on presentations and feedback from the conference, coauthors ( n = 14) developed and subsequently voted on each proposed data element. Data elements receiving a total of ≤4 votes were dropped from further consideration, 5–9 votes were considered as “Recommended,” and elements receiving ≥10 votes were considered as “Mandatory.” A total of 52 elements were classified as mandatory, 16 recommended, and 14 dropped. There are 8 mandatory data elements for RBC data collection/documentation, 24 for clinical considerations for transfusions, 13 for equipment details, and 7 for clinical endpoints. We present 52 mandatory data elements reflecting CPB-related contributions to RBC transfusions. Consistency of such reporting would offer our community an increased opportunity to shed light on the relationship between intra-operative practices and RBC transfusions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".