MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406486734 · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2025.01.009

Individualized transfusion decisions to minimize adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia

2025· article· en· W4406486734 on OpenAlexafffund
Gerard Portela, Grégory Ducrocq, Marnie Bertolet, John H. Alexander, Shaun G. Goodman, Simone A. Glynn, Jordan B. Strom, Sonja A. Swanson, Gilles Lemesle, Sunil V. Rao, Meechai Tessalee, Tamar S. Polonsky, Michael Goldfarb, Jay H. Traverse, Lynne Uhl, Brandon M. Herbert, Johanne Silvain, Jeffrey L. Carson, Maria M. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalCanadian VIGOUR CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDuke UniversityNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionAnemiaAdverse effectIntensive care medicineCardiologyBlood transfusionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Risk-benefit tradeoffs between restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies may vary across individuals. This exploratory analysis aimed to derive and evaluate individualized treatment effects of defined transfusion strategies in patients with acute MI and anemia with the goal of minimizing adverse cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: This study analyzed 3,447 (98.4%) patients randomized in the MINT (Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion) trial between April 2017 to April 2023. Outcomes for this analysis included 30-day death or recurrent MI, death, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven unscheduled revascularization). Machine learning methods were used to identify baseline patient characteristics that informed the individualized treatment effect of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy for each patient. The expected population risk of an outcome under a scenario in which patients received their optimal treatment, as indicated by the individualized treatment effect, was contrasted with expected risks for universally applying a restrictive strategy or a liberal strategy to all patients. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics did not inform individualized treatment effects on 30-day death and death or MI, suggesting minimal heterogeneity in treatment effect on these outcomes. An algorithm for estimating the individualized treatment effect on 30-day MACE included 12 baseline factors. If all patients received the optimal treatment as indicated by their estimated individualized treatment effect, the predicted risk of 30-day MACE in the sample population was 15.2% (95% CI 14.2%-16.2%). This corresponded to 4.0 (difference: -4.0%, 95% CI -5.8, -2.1) and 2.3 (difference: -2.3%, 95% CI -3.7, -0.9) percentage point risk reductions compared to applying a restrictive or liberal strategy to everyone respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MINT trial average treatment effect, favoring a liberal strategy, may be optimal to minimize risk of 30-day death and death or MI for acute MI patients with anemia represented in the MINT sample as no individualized treatment effects were estimated on these outcomes. However, individualized transfusion strategy decisions have potential to reduce risk of 30-day MACE. External validation of the MACE algorithm is required before clinical use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02981407, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02981407.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Heart Journal→Same topicBlood transfusion and management→French-language works237,207→