MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153550800 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-10-105

The Toronto prehospital hypertonic resuscitation-head injury and multi organ dysfunction trial (TOPHR HIT) - Methods and data collection tools

2009· article· en· W2153550800 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laurie J. Morrison, Sandro Rizoli, Brian Schwartz, Shawn G. Rhind, Merita Simitciu, Tyrone Perreira, Russell D. MacDonald, Anna Chiara Trompeo, Donald T. Stuss, Sandra E. Black, Alex Kiss, Andrew Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesBaycrest HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreCanada Research ChairsTransport CanadaHealth Sciences CentreDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMedicineHypertonic salineClinical trialResuscitationRandomized controlled trialTraumatic brain injuryIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials evaluating the use of hypertonic saline in the treatment of hypovolemia and head trauma suggest no survival superiority over normal saline; however subgroup analyses suggest there may be a reduction in the inflammatory response and multiorgan failure which may lead to better survival and enhanced neurocognitive function. We describe a feasibility study of randomizing head injured patients to hypertonic saline and dextran vs. normal saline administration in the out of hospital setting. METHODS/DESIGN: This feasibility study employs a randomized, placebo-controlled design evaluating normal saline compared with a single dose of 250 ml of 7.5% hypertonic saline in 6% dextran 70 in the management of traumatic brain injuries. The primary feasibility endpoints of the trial were: 1) baseline survival rates for the treatment and control group to aid in the design of a definitive multicentre trial, 2) randomization compliance rate, 3) ease of protocol implementation in the out-of-hospital setting, and 4) adverse event rate of HSD infusion.The secondary objectives include measuring the effect of HSD in modulating the immuno-inflammatory response to severe head injury and its effect on modulating the release of neuro-biomarkers into serum; evaluating the role of serum neuro-biomarkers in predicting patient outcome and clinical response to HSD intervention; evaluating effects of HSD on brain atrophy post-injury and neurocognitive and neuropsychological outcomes. DISCUSSION: We anticipate three aspects of the trial will present challenges to trial success; ethical demands associated with a waiver of consent trial, challenging follow up and comprehensive accurate timely data collection of patient identifiers and clinical or laboratory values. In addition all the data collection tools had to be derived de novo as none existed in the literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00878631.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207