Benefits of Initial Limited Crystalloid Resuscitation in Severely Injured Trauma Patients at Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether initial limited crystalloid resuscitation (LCR) benefits to all severely injured trauma patients receiving blood transfusions at emergency department (ED) is uncertain. We aimed to determine the role of LCR and its associations with packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion during initial resuscitation. METHODS: Trauma patients receiving blood transfusions were reviewed from 2004 to 2013. Patients with LCR (L group, defined as < 2,000 mL) and excessive crystalloid resuscitation (E group, defined as ≥ 2,000 mL) were compared separately in terms of basic demographic, clinical variables, and hospital outcomes. Logistic regression, R-square (R(2)), and Spearman rho correlation were used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 633 patients were included. The mortality was 51% in L group and 45% in E group (P = 0.11). No statistically significant difference was found in terms of basic demographics, vital signs upon arrival at ED, or injury severity between the groups. The volume of blood transfused strongly correlated with the volume of crystalloid infused in E group (R(2) = 0.955). Crystalloid to PRBC (C/PRBC) ratio was 0.8 in L group and 1.3 in E group (P < 0.01). The correlations between C/PRBC and ED versus ICU versus hospital length of stay (LOS) via Spearman rho were 0.25, 0.22, and 0.22, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar outcomes were observed in trauma patients receiving blood transfusions regardless of the crystalloid infusion volume. More crystalloid infusions were associated with more blood transfusions. The C/PRBC did not demonstrate predictive value regarding mortality but might predict LOS in severely injured trauma 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".