跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接讨论时变混杂、治疗反馈、目标试验模拟与边际结构模型,属于因果推断。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者

临床输血结局研究:实用方法指南

研究问题
患者多次接受不同供者血液、暴露与混杂随时间变化且相互反馈时,如何在观察性输血研究中评估供者特征与受者死亡的关系?
方法与思路
作者比较限制样本分析、时变 Cox 回归及治疗和删失逆概率加权的边际结构模型,并围绕男性受者案例介绍目标试验模拟与 g 方法。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要报告常规方法提示风险升高,而加权分析未显示关联;作者据此强调处理治疗与混杂反馈的重要性,并提供教程及示例数据。
阅读关注点
应核对目标试验的时间零点、输血暴露历史、混杂测量时序、权重与删失模型,以及各方法是否估计同一目标人群中的同一效应。
阅读边界
这是 arXiv 预印本,同行评审及期刊接收均未核实。加权分析未显示关联不等于证明无效应;摘要未说明未测混杂与权重稳定性。

原文摘要

Clinical transfusion-outcomes research faces unique methodological challenges compared with other areas of clinical research. These challenges arise because patients frequently receive multiple transfusions, each unit originates from a different donor, and the probability of receiving specific blood product characteristics is influenced by external, often uncontrollable, factors. These complexities complicate causal inference in observational studies of transfusion effectiveness and safety. This guide addresses key challenges in observational transfusion research, with a focus on time-varying exposure, time-varying confounding, and treatment-confounder feedback. Using the example of donor sex and pregnancy history in relation to recipient mortality, we illustrate the strengths and limitations of commonly used analytical approaches. We compare restriction-based analyses, time-varying Cox regression, and inverse probability weighted marginal structural models using a large observational dataset of male transfusion recipients. In the applied example, restriction and conventional time-varying approaches suggested an increased mortality risk associated with transfusion of red blood cells from ever-pregnant female donors compared with male-only donors (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22; 95% CI 1.05-1.42 and HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.41, respectively). In contrast, inverse probability of treatment and censoring weighted analyses, which account for treatment-confounder feedback, showed no evidence of an association (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.85-1.20). These findings demonstrate how conventional methods can yield biased estimates when complex longitudinal structures are not adequately handled. We provide practical guidance on study design, target trial emulation, and the use of g-methods, including a reproducible tutorial and example dataset, to support valid causal inference in clinical transfusion research.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文