Management of thrombocytopenic bleeding: is there a role for recombinant coagulation factor VIIa?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of high concentrations of recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) to improve thrombin generation in in vitro and ex vivo models of thrombocytopenia, and to improve bleeding time in thrombocytopenic animal models supports a potential role for rFVIIa in the management of thrombocytopenic bleeding. Anecdotal reports suggest that rFVIIa is effective in the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes in surgical procedures in a limited number of patients with severe thrombocytopenia. There is a need for clinical trials to determine whether rFVIIa is efficacious and safe in severe thrombocytopenic bleeding, either by itself or in combination with other hemostatic agents such as platelet transfusion. Pending the availability of such data, rFVIIa may be considered in severe thrombocytopenic bleeding that is unresponsive to human leukocyte antigen-compatible platelet transfusions and other standard treatments. If rFVIIa is used, unresolved issues include optional dosage, dosing interval, and whether rFVIIa is best used alone or in conjunction with platelet transfusion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".