MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385403003 · doi:10.1051/ject/201042114

The Effect of the Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists upon Clinical Practices

2010· article· en· W4385403003 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donald S. Likosky, Daniel C. FitzGerald, Robert C. Groom, Dwayne K. Jones, Robert A. Baker, Kenneth G. Shann, C. David Mazer, Bruce D. Spiess, Simon C. Body

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ExtraCorporeal Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeClinical PracticeCardiothoracic surgeryAmerican society of anesthesiologistsCardiac surgeryAnesthesiologyBlood transfusionIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineGeneral surgerySurgeryFamily medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2007 Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Soci ety of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Clinical Practice Guide line for Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery was recently promulgated and has received much attention. Using a survey of cardiac anesthesiologists and perfusionists’ clinical practice, we assessed the current practices of perfusion, anesthesia, and surgery, as recommended by the Guidelines and also determined the role the Guidelines had in changing these practices. Nontrainee members of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the American Academy of Cardiovascular Perfusion, the Canadian Society of Clinical Perfusion, and the American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology were surveyed using a standardized survey instrument that examined clinical practices and responses to the Guidelines. One thousand four hundred and two surveys from 1,061 institutions principally in the United States (677 institutions) and Canada (34 institutions) were returned, with a 32% response rate. There was wide distribution of the Guidelines with 78% of anesthesiologists and 67% of perfusionists reporting having read all, part, or a summary of the Guidelines. However, only 20% of respondents reported that an institutional discussion had taken place as a result of the Guidelines, and only 14% of respondents reported that an institutional monitoring group had been formed. There was wide variability in current preoperative testing, perfusion, surgical, and pharmacological practices reported by respondents. Twenty-six percent of respondents reported one or more practice changes in response to the Guidelines. The changes made were reported to be highly (9%) or somewhat effective (31%) in reducing overall transfusion rates. Only four of 38 Guideline recommendations were reported by more than 5% of respondents to have been changed in response to the Guidelines. Wide variation in clinical practices of cardiac surgery was reported. Little change in clinical practices was attributed to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ExtraCorporeal TechnologySame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207