MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388591663 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2307983

Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia

2023· article· en· W4388591663 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey L. Carson, Maria M. Brooks, Paul C. Hébert, Shaun G. Goodman, Marnie Bertolet, Simone A. Glynn, Bernard Chaitman, Tabassome Simon, Renato D. Lópes, Andrew M. Goldsweig, Andrew P. DeFilippis, J. Dawn Abbott, Brian J. Potter, François Martin Carrier, Sunil V. Rao, Howard A. Cooper, Shahab Ghafghazi, Dean Fergusson, William J. Kostis, Helaine Noveck, Sarang Kim, Meechai Tessalee, Grégory Ducrocq, Pedro Gabriel Melo de Barros e Silva, Darrell J. Triulzi, Caroline Alsweiler, Mark Menegus, John Neary, Lynn Uhl, Jordan B. Strom, Christopher B. Fordyce, Émile Ferrari, Johanne Silvain, Frances O. Wood, Benoit Daneault, Tamar S. Polonsky, Manohara Senaratne, Étienne Puymirat, Claire Bouleti, Benoît Lattuca, Harvey D. White, Sheryl F. Kelsey, Philippe Gabríel Steg, John H. Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalGrey Nuns Community HospitalCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of AlbertaSt. Michael's HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAgence Nationale de la RechercheCanadian Blood Services
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionMedicineCardiologyAnemiaInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level. METHODS: In this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations247
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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