How do Red Blood Cell Transfusions Impact Quality of Life in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review evaluates the impact of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions on quality of life (QoL) in adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and compares the effect of restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds. Literature was searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and the University of Alberta library databases using keywords “blood transfusions,” “quality of life,” and “acute myeloid leukemia.” This review includes studies published between 2015-2025. Ultimately after 103 retrieved literature only two studies met eligibility criteria. The first study found that liberal transfusion thresholds (8-9 g/dL) improved physical QoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30. The second study suggested that liberal transfusions favoured QoL particularly in the second cycle. It also led to more transfusions and a higher incidence of complications such as infections and thrombotic events. The restrictive cohort in this study showed more symptom-driven transfusions which could indicate that liberal strategies may improve symptom control. Both studies suggest that liberal transfusion thresholds may improve physical symptoms like fatigue, but the trade-off includes an increased risk of complications. Both studies were also limited by their primary focal point of physical aspects of QoL. This led to negligence in psychological and social domains. These findings highlight the need for further research into the emotional, cognitive, and social impacts of RBC transfusions in AML patients. While liberal transfusions may offer some improvement in fatigue and physical QoL, they also pose a higher risk of complications. Larger studies are needed to validate these findings and to better understand the broader impact of RBC transfusions on all aspects of QoL in AML patients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".