Control of Bleeding in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Use of a Novel Gelatin-Based Hemostatic Agent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether FloSeal Matrix Hemostatic Sealant is a safe and effective means of controlling bleeding post-endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and to assess postoperative healing. DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. SETTING: University of Toronto. METHODS: Eighteen patients with FloSeal placed on a total of 30 operative sites post-ESS. Time to cessation of bleeding was assessed intraoperatively. Patients had the operative sites assessed at 30 days postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness of FloSeal in controlling bleeding and aiding in healing of the operative site. RESULTS: FloSeal adequately controls postoperative bleeding in patients post-ESS. Healing was also not adversely affected. CONCLUSIONS: FloSeal is a safe and effective treatment for controlling blood loss after EES. It may also provide support to the middle meatus as well as improve healing of the operative site compared with the use of traditional nasal packing. However, randomized clinical trials are needed to further evaluate this.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".