Comparison of hemostatic agents in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) is a serious stroke subtype. The effective therapies for patients with sICH are still unclear, and the role of hemostatic agents in sICH is still unclear. Although some studies have shown that hemostatic agents could benefit patients with sICH, different hemostatic drugs have different effects on patients with sICH, and which hemostatic drug has the best effect on the prevention of hematoma expansion and neurological deterioration in sICH patients remains unclear. To better understand the effects of hemostatic agents in patients with sICH, it is necessary to carry out a network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the effects of different hemostatic agents. METHODS: This protocol has been designed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. Related studies in the following databases will be searched until September 2020: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP and Wanfang. Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing at least 2 different hemostatic agents in sICH patients will be included. A quality assessment will be conducted with the Cochrane Collaboration tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale based on the study design. The primary outcome will be the incidence of hematoma expansion, and the secondary outcome will be the functional outcome. Pairwise and network meta-analyses will be conducted using STATA V.14 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). Mean ranks and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be used to evaluate every agent. Statistical inconsistency assessment, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment will be performed. RESULTS: According to disseminate through academic conferences, the results of this network meta-analysis are expected to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: This study will provide high quality evidence about effects of different hemostatic agents in patients with sICH. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020196039.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".