Transfusion probability as an alternative measure of lab‐guided medical decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical decision to transfuse is strongly influenced by laboratory results. Analysis of transfusion decision-making through pre-transfusion laboratory results (e.g. pre-transfusion hemoglobin) is a common yet misleading approach to studying transfusion practice. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We introduce "Transfusion Probability", an alternative method overcoming many limitations of pre-transfusion lab result analyses. Under this approach, we estimate the probability of transfusion after results at a specific value (e.g. hemoglobin 7.4 g/dL) or in a range of values (e.g. 7.0-7.9 g/dL) using the proportion of tests followed by transfusion. We provide a comprehensive methodology for causal inference on the effect of patient characteristics and other variables of interest. RESULTS: Analyses using pre-transfusion and transfusion probability were compared through a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients (N = 525,032). We found red blood cell transfusion probabilities of 76.2% in the 6.0-6.9 g/dL, 18.9% in the 7.0-7.9 g/dL, and 4.5% in the 8.0-8.9 g/dL hemoglobin ranges. After confounder adjustment, gastrointestinal bleeding patients were more likely to be transfused, with risk differences ranging from 6.6% in the 8.0-8.9 g/dL range to 13.8% in the 6.0-6.9 g/dL range. Pre-transfusion hemoglobin results showed minimal differences between gastrointestinal bleeding patients and other patients in unadjusted (0.00 g/dL) and adjusted analyses (-0.03 g/dL). DISCUSSION: In contrast to pre-transfusion result analysis, transfusion probability offers a nuanced account of transfusion practice and natural comparisons between patient groups. Wider use of our approach can provide actionable insights for clinical decision-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".