Tranexamic acid administration to older patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty conserves hemoglobin and reduces blood loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid effects in older people are difficult to predict. This study investigated the following research questions: 1) Is tranexamic acid effective in older patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA)? and 2) Is there a difference in the effect of tranexamic acid between younger and older patients? METHODS: This was a 2-phase retrospective matched-pair study of patients who underwent THA in 2007-2013. All procedures were performed by surgeons with at least 10 years' experience as senior consultant. In the first phase, 58 patients aged 65 years or more who received tranexamic acid were matched 1:1 with patients who did not receive tranexamic acid for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and body mass index. In the second phase, 58 patients aged 65 years or more who received tranexamic acid were matched 1:1 with patients less than 65 years of age who received tranexamic acid for sex, ASA classification and body mass index. The primary outcome measures were percent maximum decrease in hemoglobin level and estimated blood loss after surgery. RESULTS: < 0.001), which indicated less bleeding in the treatment group. In the second phase, there was no difference between the younger (mean age 55.1 [SD 7.28] yr) and older (mean age 75.6 [SD 6.35] yr) groups in mean lowest postoperative hemoglobin level or percent decrease in hemoglobin level. CONCLUSION: Tranexamic acid reduced the postoperative decrease in hemoglobin level and blood loss in older patients. Moreover, the significant hemoglobin-sparing effect of tranexamic acid in older patients was similar to that observed in younger patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".