MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996540732 · doi:10.1177/1460408607086654

rFVIIa in trauma: a review and opinion-based guidelines

2007· review· en· W1996540732 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoagulopathyIntensive care medicineDosingAdverse effectHemorrhagic shockHypothermiaExpert opinionRecombinant factor VIIaAnesthesiaSurgeryResuscitationPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recombinant activated factor seven (rFVIIa) is a novel and emerging therapy for the acquired coagulopathy associated with massive bleeding and hemorrhagic shock. The intent of this paper is to review the mechanism of action of rFVIIa, to discuss the current state of evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of rFVIIa, and to offer guidance regarding its use in severely traumatized patients. No study has demonstrated a survival benefit in humans. rFVIIa, is safe to use in the setting of severe trauma associated with ongoing bleeding and acquired coagulopathy. Doses of 80—200 μg/kg may be used after correction of thrombocytopenia and acidosis. Hypothermia should be corrected in any traumatized patient, but should not be a barrier to its administration. Definitive evidence supporting the use of rFVIIa is lacking, but ongoing studies will delineate survival benefits, dosing regimens, and adverse events associated with its use.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.230 · 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