MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403038013 · doi:10.1111/trf.18035

Correlation of the Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test with clinical transfusion practice

2024· article· en· W4403038013 on OpenAlexafffund
Bryan Tordon, Harley Meirovich, A. Malkin, Katerina Pavenski, Amy Moorehead, Lette Ginsborg, Samia Saeed, Nadine Shehata, Jeannie Callum, Christine Cserti‐Gazdewich, Lani Lieberman, Jacob Pendergrast, Yulia Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreQuest University CanadaSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth CanadaUniversity of TorontoCanadian Blood ServicesAustralian Government
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeSpecialtyConfidence intervalTransfusion medicineTest (biology)Blood transfusionEmergency medicineFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how transfusion knowledge translates to practice. The purpose of the study was to determine if higher scores on a validated Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test were associated with transfusion order appropriateness. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eligible participants included postgraduate trainees and faculty physicians who had prescribed at least four transfusion orders in the preceding 6 months at two hospitals. Participant data and knowledge were collected using a web-based questionnaire with a validated Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment tool. The most recent 4-10 consecutive transfusion orders per prescriber were independently dually adjudicated for appropriateness based on published criteria. The primary outcome was the correlation between the score on six questions on red blood cells (RBCs), platelets (PLTs), and plasma from the validated test and the percentage order appropriateness. Generalized linear regression was conducted to determine if factors (sex, specialty, participation in Transfusion Camp, previous transfusion education, self-rated knowledge) were associated with appropriate orders. RESULTS: Seventy-four participants (45 trainees, 29 faculty; 31 females, 43 males) completed the test. Median score was 66.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 50.0, 83.3) for six questions on RBCs, PLTs, and plasma transfusions. Of 546 transfusion orders adjudicated, appropriateness was 90.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.9%-93.0%). The correlation between prescriber test scores and order appropriateness was very weak (r = -.08). In multivariable analysis, female prescribers (p = .02) and beginner (vs. intermediate) self-rated knowledge (p = .01) were associated with higher transfusion appropriateness. CONCLUSION: Transfusion knowledge test scores did not correlate with order appropriateness. Factors other than knowledge are key to understanding how to improve appropriate blood use.

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)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207