Red Blood Cell Transfusion for Incidence of Retinopathy of Prematurity: Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness in preterm infants. Objective: This study sought to investigate the association between red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and ROP in very preterm infants (VPIs) to inform clinical strategies for ROP prevention and treatment. Methods: We designed a prospective multicenter cohort study that included VPIs and follow-up data from January 2017 to December 2022 at 3 neonatal clinical medicine centers. They were categorized into a transfusion group (infants who received an RBC transfusion within 4 wk) and a nontransfusion group. The relationship between RBC transfusion and ROP incidence was assessed using binary logistic regression, with subgroup analyses based on gestational age, birth weight, sex, and sepsis status. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score matching were applied to account for all potential confounding factors that could affect ROP development, followed by sensitivity analysis. Results: The study included 832 VPIs, including 327 in the nontransfusion group and 505 in the transfusion group. The transfusion group had a lower average birth weight and gestational age and a greater incidence of ROP, ≥stage 2 ROP, and severe ROP. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the transfusion group had a significantly greater risk of ROP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.70, 95% CI 1.14-2.53, P=.009) and ≥stage 2 ROP (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02-2.78, P=.04) but not severe ROP (aOR 1.75, 95% CI 0.61-5.02, P=.30). The trend analysis also revealed an increased risk of ROP with an increasing number of transfusions and a larger volume of blood transfused (P for trend<.001). Subgroup analyses confirmed a consistent trend, with the transfusion group at a higher risk for ROP across all subgroups. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score matching analyses supported the initial findings. Conclusions: For VPIs, RBC transfusion significantly increases the risk of ROP, and the risk increases with an increasing number of transfusions and volume of blood transfused.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".