Using Intra-arterial tPA for Severe Frostbite Cases. An Observational Comparative Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frostbite causes tissue damage through five major mechanisms, out of which two are amenable to treatment. The first-line treatment is rapid rewarming therapy using water at 40°C to 42°C, which addresses the formation of ice crystals in the intra and extra cellular compartments. The second mechanism is progressive tissue ischemia after rewarming and is only accessible to a second-line therapy represented by thrombolysis. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of thrombolysis. This is a single-center retrospective cohort study, where it was aimed to evaluate two groups of patients. A total of 18 patients were included in this study. Mean times between injury to thrombolytic therapy and admission to thrombolytic therapy was 26.04 hours (SD 13.6) and 9.65 hours (SD 9.89), respectively. All patients suffered injuries ranging from second-degree deep to third degree. The rate of patients having complete, partial, and no angiographic responses were 55.6%, 11.1%, and 33.3%, respectively. The main outcome of interest showed that 11 (61.1%) patients in total had amputations at different levels. Results showed that in the intervention group, five (55.6%) of the patients had amputations compared with six (66.7%) from the control group (P = .6) at comparable levels of amputation. The literature supports that the use of intra-arterial tissue plasminogen activator might be beneficial for severe cases of frostbites; however, it lacks of studies of major significance and results are often controversial. Our study has not shown statistically significant results on amputation levels and cannot support the hypothesis of efficacy of thrombolytic therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".