Tranexamic Acid versus Placebo to Prevent Blood Transfusion during Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer (TACT): Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radical cystectomy for bladder cancer is associated with a high risk of needing red blood cell transfusion. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss during cardiac and orthopedic surgery, but no study has yet evaluated tranexamic acid use during cystectomy. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind (surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, patient-, data-monitor-blinded), placebo-controlled trial of tranexamic acid during cystectomy was initiated in June 2013. Prior to incision, the intervention arm participants receive a 10 mg/kg loading dose of intravenously administered tranexamic acid, followed by a 5 mg/kg/h maintenance infusion. In the control arm, the patient receives an identical volume of normal saline that is indistinguishable from the intervention. The primary outcome is any blood transfusion from the start of surgery up to 30 days post operative. There are no strict criteria to mandate the transfusion of blood products. The decision to transfuse is entirely at the discretion of the treating physicians who are blinded to patient allocation. Physicians are allowed to utilize all resources to make transfusion decisions, including serum hemoglobin concentration and vital signs. To date, 147 patients of a planned 354 have been randomized to the study. DISCUSSION: This protocol reviews pertinent data relating to blood transfusion during radical cystectomy, highlighting the need to identify methods for reducing blood loss and preventing transfusion in patients receiving radical cystectomy. It explains the clinical rationale for using tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss during cystectomy, and outlines the study methods of our ongoing randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) Protocol: MOP-342559; ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01869413. Registered on 5 June 2013.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".