Protocol for a pilot, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of prophylactic use of tranexamic acid for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (TAPPH-1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite the availability of multiple uterotonic agents, the incidence of PPH continues to rise. Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to be a safe, effective and inexpensive therapeutic option for the treatment of PPH, however, its use prophylactically in mitigating the risk of PPH is unknown. This pragmatic randomised prospective trial assesses the feasibility and safety of administering TXA at the time of delivery for the prevention of PPH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pilot pragmatic randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial will be performed. 58 singleton parturients at term >32 weeks, undergoing either spontaneous vaginal delivery, or caesarean section will be randomised to receive 1 g of TXA or placebo (0.9% saline) intravenously. The primary outcome assessed will be the feasibility of administrating TXA, along with collecting data regarding safety of drug administration. The groups will also be analysed on efficacy of mitigating the onset of PPH and clinically relevant variables. Demographic, feasibility, safety and clinical endpoints will be summarised and the appropriate measures of central tendency and dispersion will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Research Ethics Board (number: 418-2016). The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03069859; Pre-results.
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 | 0.036 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.131 | 0.028 |
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".