MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402644588 · doi:10.2196/60330

Red Blood Cell Transfusion for Incidence of Retinopathy of Prematurity: Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4402644588 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoling Wang, Rui Rao, Xiaoping Lei, Wenbin Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinopathy of Prematurity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRetinopathy of prematurityMedicineIncidence (geometry)Prospective cohort studyPediatricsBlood transfusionRed Blood Cell TransfusionCohort studyGestational ageInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicRetinopathy of Prematurity StudiesFrench-language works237,207