MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133802104 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000837

Detailed Description of All Deaths in Both the Shock and Traumatic Brain Injury Hypertonic Saline Trials of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium

2014· review· en· W2133802104 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel A. Tisherman, Robert H. Schmicker, Karen J. Brasel, Eileen M. Bulger, Jeffrey D. Kerby, Joseph P. Minei, Judy Powell, Donald A. Reiff, Sandro Rizoli, Martin A. Schreiber

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHypertonic salineResuscitationInterquartile rangeGlasgow Coma ScaleShock (circulatory)Traumatic brain injuryAnesthesiaCohortBlood pressureCohort studyInjury Severity ScoreSurgeryInternal medicinePoison controlEmergency medicineInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: To identify causes and timing of mortality in trauma patients to determine targets for future studies. Background: In trials conducted by the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium in patients with traumatic hypovolemic shock (shock) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), hypertonic saline failed to improve survival. Selecting appropriate candidates is challenging. Methods: Retrospective review of patients enrolled in multicenter, randomized trials performed from 2006 to 2009. Inclusion criteria were as follows: injured patients, age 15 years or more with hypovolemic shock [systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 70 mm Hg or SBP 71–90 mm Hg with heart rate ≥ 108) or severe TBI [Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≤ 8]. Initial fluid administered was 250 mL of either 7.5% saline with 6% dextran 70, 7.5% saline or 0.9% saline. Results: A total of 2061 subjects were enrolled (809 shock, 1252 TBI) and 571 (27.7%) died. Survivors were younger than nonsurvivors [30 (interquartile range 23) vs 42 (34)] and had a higher GCS, though similar hemodynamics. Most deaths occurred despite ongoing resuscitation. Forty-six percent of deaths in the TBI cohort were within 24 hours, compared with 82% in the shock cohort and 72% in the cohort with both shock and TBI. Median time to death was 29 hours in the TBI cohort, 2 hours in the shock cohort, and 4 hours in patients with both. Sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction accounted for 2% of deaths. Conclusions: Most deaths from trauma with shock or TBI occur within 24 hours from hypovolemic shock or TBI. Novel resuscitation strategies should focus on early deaths, though prevention may have a greater impact. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium has conducted trials of hypertonic saline in patients who suffered traumatic hemorrhagic shock or traumatic brain injury (TBI). A secondary analysis of these studies revealed that most deaths occurred within 24 hours of injury, with hemorrhagic shock or TBI as the most common causes. Late deaths were rare.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.475
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.028 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations242
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207