Two HEmostasis Methods After TransradIal Catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of 2 hemostasis devices on the incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) after transradial cardiac catheterization. BACKGROUND: Radial artery occlusion is the most prevalent ischemic complication after radial artery catheterization. There is still no predictive pattern of vessel patency assessment, and the comparative effectiveness of different hemostasis techniques has yet to be established. METHODS: This study used a randomized clinical trial of adult patients undergoing transradial cardiac catheterization. Participants were randomized into an intervention group (hemostasis with the TR Band device) and a control group (hemostasis with a conventional pressure dressing). The primary end point was the incidence of RAO (at discharge and at 30 days post catheterization). RESULTS: Among the 600 patients included (301 in the intervention group and 299 controls), immediate RAO occurred in 24 (8%) in the TR Band group and 19 (6%) in the pressure-dressing group; at 30 days, RAO was present in 5 patients (5%) in the TR Band group and 7 (6%) in the pressure-dressing group. On multivariate analysis, peripheral vascular disease was the only independent predictor of RAO at discharge and at 30 days. ConclusionsThe incidence of RAO was similar in patients who received hemostasis with a TR Band versus a pressure dressing after transradial cardiac catheterization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".