Safety and Efficacy of Thrombin-JMI: A Multidisciplinary Expert Group Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of bovine thrombin has been an effective approach to aiding hemostasis during surgery for over 60 years. Its use has a reported association with the development of antibodies to coagulation factors with limited evidence to the clinical significance. METHODS: The Collaborative Delphi survey methodology was used to develop a consensus on specified topic areas from a panel of 12 surgeons/scientists who have had experience with topical thrombins; it consisted of 2 rounds of a Web-based survey and a final live discussion. RESULTS: Some key issues that reached consensus included: bovine, human plasma-derived and recombinant human thrombin are equally effective hemostatic agents with similar adverse event rates, and immunogenicity to a topical protein rarely translate into adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although a risk of immunogenicity is associated with all topical thrombins, no conclusive clinical evidence is available that these antibodies have any significant effect on short- and long-term clinical consequences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.238 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".