Assessing the need for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for management of non-compressible hemorrhage at a Canadian urban trauma centre: a retrospective chart review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a less invasive alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) for life threatening, infra-diaphragmatic, non-compressible hemorrhage from trauma. Existing evidence surrounding the efficacy of REBOA is conflicting; nevertheless, expert consensus suggests that REBOA should be considered in select trauma patients. There has been a paucity of studies that evaluate the potential utility of REBOA in the Canadian setting. The study objective was to evaluate the percentage of trauma patients presenting to a Level 1 Canadian trauma centre that would have met criteria for REBOA. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients recorded in the British Columbia Trauma Registry who warranted a trauma team activation (TTA) at our institution. We identified REBOA candidates using pre-defined criteria based on published guidelines. Each TTA case was screened by a reviewer, and then each Potential Candidate was reviewed by a panel of trauma physicians for determination of final candidacy. Results Fourteen patients were classified as Likely REBOA Candidates (2.2% of TTAs, median age 46.1 years, 64.3% female). These patients had a median Injury Severity Score of 31.5 (IQR 26.8). The main sources of hemorrhage in these patients were from abdominal injuries (71.4%) and pelvic fractures (42.9%). Conclusion The percentage of patients who met criteria for REBOA is similar to that of RTs performed at our Canadian institution. While REBOA would be performed infrequently, it is a less-invasive alternative to RT, which could be a potentially life-saving procedure in a small group of the most severely injured trauma patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".