MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565322857 · doi:10.1186/cc4931

Recombinant factor VIIa in severe trauma: further study needed

2006· article· en· W1565322857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dan A. Galvan, Mitchell P. Fink

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboPenetrating traumaRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointBlunt traumaSurgeryBlood transfusionRecombinant factor VIIaAnesthesiaBluntClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expanded AbstractCitationBoffard KD, Riou B, Warren B, Choong PI, Rizoli S, Rossaint R, Axelsen M, Kluger Y: Recombinant factor VIIa as adjunctive therapy for bleeding control in severely injured trauma patients: two parallel randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials. J Trauma 2005, 59:8–15 [1].BackgroundUncontrolled bleeding is a leading cause of death in trauma. Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials (one in blunt trauma and one in penetrating trauma) were conducted simultaneously to evaluate the efficacy and safety of recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) as adjunctive therapy for control of bleeding in patients with severe blunt or penetrating trauma.MethodsDesignTwo parallel randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials.SettingThirty-two hospitals throughout Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Singapore, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.InterventionSeverely bleeding trauma patients were randomized to rFVIIa (200, 100, and 100 μg/kg) or placebo in addition to standard treatment. The first dose followed transfusion of the eighth red blood cell (RBC) unit, with additional doses 1 and 3 hours later.OutcomesThe primary endpoint for bleeding control in patients alive at 48 hours was units of RBCs transfused within 48 hours of the first dose.ResultsAmong 301 patients randomized, 143 blunt trauma patients and 134 penetrating trauma patients were eligible for analysis. In blunt trauma, RBC transfusion was significantly reduced with rFVIIa relative to placebo (estimated reduction of 2.6 RBC units, p = 0.02), and the need for massive transfusion (>20 units of RBCs) was reduced (14% vs. 33% of patients; p = 0.03). In penetrating trauma, similar analyses showed trends toward rFVIIa reducing RBC transfusion (estimated reduction of 1.0 RBC units, p = 0.10) and massive transfusion (7% vs. 19%; p = 0.08). Trends toward a reduction in mortality and critical complications were observed. Adverse events including thromboembolic events were evenly distributed between treatment groups.ConclusionRecombinant FVIIa resulted in a significant reduction in RBC transfusions in severe blunt trauma. Similar trends were observed in penetrating trauma. The safety of rFVIIa was established in these trauma populations within the investigated dose range.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207