MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7164589925 · doi:10.2196/83889

Prediction of Blood Transfusion Need and Dose in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Multicenter Prediction Model Study (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W7164589925 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoyu Li, Yuqin He, Mingyang Hou, Zhi Yu, Shuai Miao, Zhiyong Huang, Min Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyBlood transfusionMulticenter studyMEDLINEGastrointestinal bleedingUpper gastrointestinal bleeding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transfusion thresholds in upper gastrointestinal bleeding are debated; hemoglobin cutoffs of 70-80 g/L are widely cited yet inconsistently applied. Common risk scores offer limited individualized guidance and rarely provide calibrated, interpretable predictions for transfusion decisions. Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a two-stage, clinically constrained gradient-boosting framework (Medically Constrained Gradient Boosting [MCGB]) that predicts transfusion need and estimates transfusion dose with quantified uncertainty and to implement a prototype recommendation system for clinical use. Methods: We analyzed a retrospective multicenter cohort of 849 adults with endoscopically confirmed upper gastrointestinal bleeding admitted to 3 hospitals in Chongqing, China (January 2019 to August 2025). Predictors available before the transfusion decision included demographics, first recorded vital signs, initial laboratory indices, and clinician-adjudicated etiology. Stage 1 used a calibrated classifier with prespecified monotonic constraints and stability-screened, clinically justified interactions. Stage 2 modeled transfusion dose via quantile predictions with conformal adjustment to generate 95% prediction intervals. Performance was assessed using a cross-site hold-out design. Overall, 2 hospitals were used as the development cohort, within which stratified 5-fold cross-validation was performed for model development, hyperparameter tuning, interaction screening, and calibration. The remaining hospital was held out as an independent test cohort for final evaluation. Hospital-wise alternating external testing was further conducted as a supplementary robustness analysis to assess performance stability across institutions. Classification performance was evaluated using discrimination metrics (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision-recall curve), calibration metrics, and decision-curve analysis; regression performance was evaluated using R², mean absolute error, and prediction-interval coverage. A graphical user interface was implemented to enable clinicians to input patient data and obtain calibrated predictions of transfusion probability and corresponding dose recommendations. Results: MCGB achieved strong discrimination and good calibration across subgroups (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=0.97 and area under the precision-recall curve=0.91). At a reference probability threshold of .50, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-scores were 0.99, 0.87, and 0.85, respectively, providing a representative operating point for comparison. For dose prediction among transfused patients, MCGB achieved R² of 0.95 and mean absolute error 0.04; 95% prediction-interval coverage was 0.94, indicating accurate point estimates with reliable uncertainty quantification. The software prototype further demonstrated feasibility of real-time decision support at the bedside. Conclusions: MCGB provides calibrated, interpretable predictions of transfusion need and individualized dose in upper gastrointestinal bleeding and may support bedside decision-making and blood-bank planning, with a prototype interface demonstrating potential for clinical deployment. External validation in additional settings is warranted to confirm generalizability.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207