Safety and Efficacy of Thrombin-JMI: A Multidisciplinary Expert Group Consensus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it