The future of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion in combat operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Damage control resuscitation and early thoracotomy have been used to increase survival after severe injury in combat. There has been a renewed interest in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in both civilian and military medical practices. REBOA may result in visceral and limb ischaemia that could be harmful if use of REBOA is premature or prolonged. The purpose of this paper is to align our experience of combat injuries with the known capability of REBOA to suggest an implementation strategy for the use of REBOA in combat care. It may replace the resuscitative effect of thoracotomy; can provide haemostasis of non-compressible torso injuries such as the junctional and pelvic haemorrhage caused by improvised explosive devices. However, prehospital use of REBOA must be in the context of an overall surgical plan and should be restricted to deployment in the distal aorta. Although REBOA is technically easier than a thoracotomy, it requires operator training and skill to add to the beneficial effect of damage control resuscitation and surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".