Clinical review: Canadian National Advisory Committee on Blood and Blood Products - Massive Transfusion Consensus Conference 2011: report of the panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2011 the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Blood and Blood Products sponsored an international consensus conference on transfusion and trauma. A panel of 10 experts and two external advisors reviewed the current medical literature and information presented at the conference by invited international speakers and attendees. The Consensus Panel addressed six specific questions on the topic of blood transfusion in trauma. The questions focused on: ratio-based blood resuscitation in trauma patients; the impact of survivorship bias in current research conclusions; the value of nonplasma coagulation products; the role of protocols for delivery of urgent transfusion; the merits of traditional laboratory monitoring compared with measures of clot viscoelasticity; and opportunities for future research. Key findings include a lack of evidence to support the use of 1:1:1 blood component ratios as the standard of care, the importance of early use of tranexamic acid, the expected value of an organized response plan, and the recommendation for an integrated approach that includes antifibrinolytics, rapid release of red blood cells, and a foundation ratio of blood components adjusted by results from either traditional coagulation tests or clot viscoelasticity or both. The present report is intended to provide guidance to practitioners, hospitals, and policy-makers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".