Red blood cell utilization in patients with sickle cell disease: A Canadian single‐center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) utilization in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) in Canada is poorly defined. This study describes RBC utilization in an SCD cohort at a single Canadian center. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: All adults with SCD who received care at the Ottawa Hospital between January 2006 and May 2019 were included, and followed until December 2021. Data on hospital encounters and RBC transfusions were obtained from hospital databases. RESULTS: Overall, 273 patients were included (median age: 25 years; 53.8% female; median follow-up: 8.1 years). During the study period, there were 23,127 hospital encounters (median: 45 [interquartile range (IQR) 18, 100] per patient), with 165 patients (60.4% of cohort) receiving 22,538 RBC units. Most RBC units (86.5%) were transfused in the outpatient setting. Although only 2.9% of patients had O-negative blood type, O-negative RBC units accounted for 29.1% of units transfused. One hundred forty-seven patients received 2205 RBC units (9.8% of total) as simple transfusions (median: 5 [IQR 3, 13] per patient), and 88 patients received 20,333 RBC units (90.2% of total) during 2702 red cell exchange (RCE) sessions (median: 14.5 (IQR 1, 47.5) RCE per transfused patient). A median of 7 RBC units (IQR 6, 9) were transfused per RCE session, with a median of 30 days (IQR 28, 40) between sessions. DISCUSSION: Patients with SCD at our center frequently received O-negative units, and large RBC volumes were used for RCE. These results provide a utilization baseline for future education and quality improvement initiatives to optimize RBC stewardship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".