MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013970886 · doi:10.1186/s40779-020-00241-z

Hemostatic agents for prehospital hemorrhage control: a narrative review

2020· review· en· W3013970886 on OpenAlexaff
Henry T. Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medical Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemostatic AgentBattlefieldNarrative reviewIntensive care medicineHemorrhagic shockResuscitationMedical emergencyHemostasisEmergency medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death in combat trauma and the secondary cause of death in civilian trauma. A significant number of deaths due to hemorrhage occur before and in the first hour after hospital arrival. A literature search was performed through PubMed, Scopus, and Institute of Scientific Information databases for English language articles using terms relating to hemostatic agents, prehospital, battlefield or combat dressings, and prehospital hemostatic resuscitation, followed by cross-reference searching. Abstracts were screened to determine relevance and whether appropriate further review of the original articles was warranted. Based on these findings, this paper provides a review of a variety of hemostatic agents ranging from clinically approved products for human use to newly developed concepts with great potential for use in prehospital settings. These hemostatic agents can be administered either systemically or locally to stop bleeding through different mechanisms of action. Comparisons of current hemostatic products and further directions for prehospital hemorrhage control are also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations150
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary Medical ResearchSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207