Type-specific whole blood still has a role in the era of low-titer O universal donor transfusion for severe trauma hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Whole blood can be ABO-type specific (type-specific whole blood (TSWB)) or low-titer O universal donor (low-titer O whole blood (LTOWB)). Having previously used LTOWB, the US Armed Forces Blood Program began using TSWB in 1965 as a method of increasing the donor pool. In contrast to military practice, the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies formerly the American association of blood banks (AABB), from its first guidelines in 1958 until 2018, permitted only TSWB. Attempting to reduce time to transfusion, the US military reintroduced LTOWB in the deployed environment in 2015; this practice was endorsed by the AABB in 2018 and is progressively being implemented by military and civilian providers worldwide. Low-titer O whole blood is the only practical solution prehospital. However, there are several reasons to retain the option of TSWB in hospitals with a laboratory. These include (1) as-yet ill-defined risks of immunological complications from ABO-incompatible plasma (even when this has low titers of anti-A and -B), (2) risks of high volumes of LTOWB including published historical advice (based on clinical experience) not to transfuse type-specific blood for 2 to 3 weeks following a substantial LTOWB transfusion, (3) uncertainty as to the optimal definition of "low titer," and (4) expanding the potential donor pool by allowing type-specific transfusion. Several large randomized controlled trials currently underway are comparing LTOWB with component therapy, but none address the question of LTOWB versus TSWB. There are sufficient data to suggest that the additional risks of transfusing LTOWB to non-group O recipients should be avoided by using TSWB as soon as possible. Combined with the advantage of maintaining an adequate supply of blood products in times of high demand, this suggests that retaining TSWB within the civilian and military blood supply system is desirable. TSWB should be preferred when patient blood group is confirmed in facilities with a hematology laboratory, with LTOWB reserved for patients whose blood group is unknown.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".