Hypertonic Resuscitation: Design and Implementation of a Prehospital Intervention Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trauma is the leading cause of death among North Americans between the ages of 1 and 44 years. Resuscitation with hypertonic saline (7.5%) solutions can reduce mortality in hypotensive and brain-injured patients. STUDY DESIGN: Two multicenter, randomized, clinical trials were designed to compare hypertonic saline resuscitation with or without dextran with conventional isotonic resuscitation in patients with hypovolemic shock or traumatic brain injury. During a 3-year period, 5,848 patients will be randomized, with a primary end point of 28-day survival in the hypovolemic shock cohort and 6-month neurologic outcomes in the traumatic brain injury cohort. RESULTS: This is a report of the study design and implementation of 2 large-scale prehospital intervention trials from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium that qualify for exception from informed consent required for emergency research outlined in FDA regulation 21CFR50.24 and the Canadian Tri-Council Agreement for research in emergency health situations (Article 2.8). CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully designed and implemented two prehospital intervention trials. The proc-ess has helped define the numerous challenges that must be overcome to pursue exception from informed consent resuscitation research in the prehospital setting. The results of these studies will hopefully advance and improve the early care of the severely injured patient. Abbreviations and Acronyms: EMS: emergency medical services; GCS: Glasgow Coma Score; GOSE: Glasgow Outcomes Score Extended; HS: hypertonic saline; HSD: hypertonic saline with dextran; IC: intracranial; LAR: legally authorized representative; ROC: Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium; SBP: systolic blood pressure; TBI: traumatic brain injury.
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 | 0.067 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".