Epistaxis: What Do People Know and What Do They Do?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the current knowledge of the first-aid management of epistaxis and misconceptions among the general Saudi population. Methods: A survey questionnaire was developed and was distributed through text message, E-mail, social networks, various websites, and web forums among the Saudi population. Responses were collected over a period of 2 months. Knowledge was assessed based on correct responses to six main questions. Five to six correct answers were considered as excellent knowledge, 3–4 as good knowledge, and 2 and below as poor knowledge. Results: There were 1760 individuals who responded to the survey, 577 (32.8%) were males. There were 828 respondents (47%) who received information on the first-aid management of epistaxis, the most common source of information was through a relative or a friend (15.7%). Only 199 respondents (11.3%) will apply pressure to control epistaxis, 99 (5.6%) knows where to correctly press, and 84 (4.78%) will correctly tilt the head forward. There were 132 respondents (7.5%) who thought that patients should be brought to the ER in all cases of epistaxis. There were 1111 respondents (63.2%) who have poor knowledge of first-aid management of epistaxis. Conclusion: There is poor knowledge of the first-aid management of epistaxis in the surveyed Saudi population. Increased awareness and information dissemination programs on the first-aid management of epistaxis can improve knowledge and recall among the general population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".