MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056002693 · doi:10.1503/cjs.020312

Damage control resuscitation: history, theory and technique

2014· review· en· W2056002693 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDamage control surgeryResuscitationDamage controlCoagulopathyTamponadeIntravascular volume statusIntensive care medicineBlood volumeBalloon tamponadeBlood transfusionSurgeryAnesthesiaHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage control resuscitation (DCR) represents the natural evolution of the initial concept of damage control surgery. It currently includes early blood product transfusion, immediate arrest and/or temporization of ongoing hemorrhage (i.e., temporary intravascular shunts and/or balloon tamponade) as well as restoration of blood volume and physiologic/hematologic stability. As a result, DCR addresses the early coagulopathy of trauma, avoids massive crystalloid resuscitation and leaves the peritoneal cavity open when a patient approaches physiologic exhaustion without improvement. This concept also applies to severe injuries within anatomical transition zones as well as extremities. This review will discuss each of these concepts in detail.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.233 · 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