MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407734882 · doi:10.1182/blood.2023022883

How I treat patients who are refractory to platelet transfusions

2025· review· en· W4407734882 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Nahirniak, Veera Sekaran Nadarajan, Simon Stanworth

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMD Precision (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineHuman leukocyte antigenImmunologyPlatelet transfusionImmune systemEtiologyPlateletClinical significanceCulpritInternal medicineAntigenMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Patients with thrombocytopenia requiring ongoing platelet transfusion support may develop inadequate platelet count increments, referred to as platelet refractoriness (PR), which further complicates their care. The underlying etiologies of PR can be broadly divided into immune and nonimmune causes. A high index of suspicion is required to initiate testing for alloimmunization, and the leading culprit in immune PR is the development of class I HLA antibodies. The approach to diagnosis of immune PR has changed over recent years with new technologies, but questions regarding the clinical significance and interpretation of these methods have not been conclusively answered. The provision of HLA-matched platelets requires close and timely coordination between transfusion services and clinical teams; however, the true impact of their provision on clinical outcomes is not clear. This paper reviews diagnostic and management challenges, appraises the existing data available to support treatment options, and identifies research gaps.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207