Pre-Procedure Desmopressin Acetate to Reduce Bleeding in Renal Failure: Does It Really Work?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Desmopressin (DDAVP) is often used prior to procedures to minimize bleeding in patients with renal failure; however, there is little evidence to support this practice. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the practice of administration of DDAVP prior to procedures within our division and to determine the number of bleeding episodes for patients who received DDAVP compared to those who did not. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Hospital records of patients who underwent renal biopsy or central line placement between April 2006 and March 2008 were reviewed. Patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> were identified and subcategorized into three groups: group A GFR <15 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, group B GFR 15-29 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, and group C GFR 30-60 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>. The number of bleeding events was noted in each group. <b><i>Results:</i></b> No significant difference was found in the number of bleeding events between those who received and did not receive DDAVP overall and in each GFR group. A possible trend towards the benefit with treatment in group A was observed. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> There was no significant reduction in bleeding for those who received DDAVP which questions the validity of this practice. Patients with GFR <15 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> may possibly derive benefit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it