Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of Transfusion Medicine as a bridging science, integrally deals with that part of the health care system that undertakes the appropriate provision and use of human blood resources, whether whole blood, plasma, or cellular components. The development of a safe blood supply and transfusion brings along the introduction of managing quality as a culture. This is implemented through the introduction of a quality system (QS) and a related quality management system (QMS). Quality system management (QSM) in transfusion medicine is about providing and assuring vein-to-vein safe and effective hemotherapy. In many situations in the world the idea is that when instructions are written (SOPs) a quality system is in place; one just has to follow the instructions and ‘that is it, we’re done’! However, quality does not only partly depend on following instructions at the operational level. What is generally not understood is the importance of designing and implementing quality system management as an institutional culture, based on five key elements 1) organization and (infra)structure; 2) standards (technical and quality); 3) documentation to allow traceability and evidence; 4) education through continued teaching and training; 5) assessment through continued monitoring and evaluation. There are a number of quality management systems available, which can be applied to procurement and clinical use of blood. Some are “process”- and “operations-oriented” while others deal more with the management aspects, securing a quality environment and culture, necessary for consistency and reliability of the operational processes. The EU EFQM and Canadian ISQua systems are based on concepts of excellence. To achieve an optimal understanding of the values of vein-to-vein quality in transfusion medicine, a culture has to be developed through ownership, stewardship, and commitment to and implementation of the principles of fitness for purpose, the supplier-producer-customer continuum, and customer-orientation and satisfaction. Commitment from top management is the driving force for a culture of quality. Leaders need to be clearly visible, engaged and unwavering in their support for quality improvement.
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 | 0.036 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".