MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Massive haemorrhage: findings from the consensus conference for the Canadian National Advisory Committee on blood and blood products

2012· article· en· W1865999067 on OpenAlexaffabout
S.J. Stanworth

Bibliographic record

VenueISBT Science Series · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranexamic acidMedicineAdvisory committeeAuditBlood componentConsensus conferenceBlood transfusionMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineBlood lossSurgeryPolitical scienceBusinessAccountingPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian National Advisory Committee on Blood and Blood Products convened a consensus conference on transfusion and trauma in June 2011. Key findings included a lack of evidence to support the use of 1:1:1 blood component ratios as the standard of care, the importance of early use of tranexamic acid, and the expected value of an organized response plan in trauma. Practical massive haemorrhage plans must be developed locally and reiterate the importance of communication, education, and the role of audit and monitoring of cases. Generalising findings from trauma to other settings of major bleeding is limited by lack of relevant clinical studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISBT Science SeriesSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207