MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058962828 · doi:10.2500/ajra.2012.26.3696

Management of Intractable Spontaneous Epistaxis

2012· review· en· W2058962828 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Rudmik, Timothy L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Rhinology and Allergy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Anomalies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is a common otolaryngology emergency and is often controlled with first-line interventions such as cautery, hemostatic agents, or anterior nasal packing. A subset of patients will continue to bleed and require more aggressive therapy. METHODS: Intractable spontaneous epistaxis was traditionally managed with posterior nasal packing and prolonged hospital admission. In an effort to reduce patient morbidity and shorten hospital stay, surgical and endovascular techniques have gained popularity. A literature review was conducted. RESULTS: Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation and arterial embolization provide excellent control rates but the decision to choose one over the other can be challenging. The role of transnasal endoscopic anterior ethmoid artery ligation is unclear but may be considered in certain cases when bleeding localizes to the ethmoid region. CONCLUSION: This article will focus on the management of intractable spontaneous epistaxis and discuss the role of endoscopic arterial ligation and embolization as it pertains to this challenging clinical scenario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Rhinology and AllergySame topicVascular Anomalies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207