MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588986585 · doi:10.1097/shk.0000000000000788

Earlier Endpoints are Required for Hemorrhagic Shock Trials Among Severely Injured Patients

2017· article· en· W2588986585 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Erin E. Fox, John B. Holcomb, Charles E. Wade, Eileen M. Bulger, Barbara C. Tilley

Bibliographic record

VenueShock · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointHemorrhagic shockObservational studyResuscitationClinical trialEmergency medicineMortality rateShock (circulatory)Intensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Choosing the appropriate endpoint for a trauma hemorrhage control trial can determine the likelihood of its success. Recent Phase 3 trials and observational studies have used 24-h and/or 30-day all-cause mortality as the primary endpoint and some have not used exception from informed consent (EFIC), resulting in multiple failed trials. Five recent high-quality prospective studies among 4,064 hemorrhaging trauma patients provide new evidence to support earlier primary endpoints. METHODS: The goal of this project was to determine the optimal endpoint for hemorrhage control trials using existing literature and new analyses of previously published data. RESULTS: Recent studies among bleeding trauma patients show that hemorrhagic deaths occur rapidly, at a high rate, and in a consistent pattern. Early preventable deaths among trauma patients are largely due to hemorrhage and the median time to hemorrhagic death from admission is 2.0 to 2.6 h. Approximately 85% of hemorrhagic deaths occur within 6 h. The hourly mortality rate due to traumatic injury decreases rapidly after enrollment from 4.6% per hour at 1 hour postenrollment to 1% per hour at 6 h to <0.1% per hour by 9 h and thereafter. Early primary endpoints (within 6 h) have critically important benefits for hemorrhage control trials, including being congruent with the median time to hemorrhagic death, biologic plausibility, and enabling the use of all-cause mortality, which is definitive and objective. CONCLUSIONS: Primary endpoints should be congruent with the timing of the disease process. Therefore, if a resuscitation/hemorrhage control intervention is under study, a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality evaluated within the first 6 h is appropriate. Before choosing the timing of the primary endpoint for a large multicenter trial, we recommend performing a Phase 2 trial under EFIC to better understand the effects of the hemorrhage control intervention and distribution of time to death. When early primary endpoints are used, patients should be monitored for multiple subsequent secondary safety endpoints, including 24 h and 30-day all-cause mortality as well as the customary safety endpoints.

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)0.285
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.264
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2850.264
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.275 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations187
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShockSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207