Position of the French Working Group on Perioperative Haemostasis (GIHP) on viscoelastic tests: What role for which indication in bleeding situations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: ) are global tests of coagulation performed on whole blood. They evaluate the mechanical strength of a clot as it builds and develops after coagulation itself. The time required to obtain haemostasis results remains a major problem for clinicians dealing with bleeding, although some teams have developed a rapid laboratory response strategy. Indeed, the value of rapid point-of-care diagnostic devices such as VETs has increased over the years. However, VETs are not standardised and there are few recommendations from the learned societies regarding their use. In 2014, the recommendations of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) only concerned haemophilia. The French Working Group on Perioperative haemostasis (GIHP) therefore proposes to summarise knowledge on the clinical use of these techniques in the setting of emergency and perioperative medicine. METHODS: A review of the literature. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The role of the VETs seems established in the management of severe trauma and in cardiac surgery, both adult and paediatric. In other situations, their role remains to be defined: hepatic transplantation, postpartum haemorrhage, and non-cardiac surgery. They must be part of the global management of haemostasis based on algorithms defined in each centre and for each population of patients. Their position at the bedside or in the laboratory is a matter of discussion between clinicians and biologists. CONCLUSION: VETs must be included in algorithms. In consultation with the biology laboratory, these devices should be situated according to the way each centre functions.
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 | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".