Systematic review of hematuria and acute renal failure with tranexamic acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of tranexamic acid (TXA) and the risk of renal failure from urinary clots in adult patients with hematuria. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, and Google Scholar were searched. Randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies that assessed the risk of renal failure with use of TXA among adults with hematuria were included. The primary outcome was renal failure due to urinary tract clots with TXA compared to no TXA (or placebo) or comparator. RESULTS: We identified three RCTs (N = 466 patients) and three retrospective cohort studies (N=220 patients), and a total of 342 patients that had hematuria and received TXA. The patient population of the six studies included medical and surgical patients, with two of the three RCTs comprised patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and the third RCT comprised patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate. Documentation of renal function before and after TXA administration was documented in only two studies (N = 28 patients), and neither identified worsening renal function in those exposed to TXA. CONCLUSIONS: There are limited studies evaluating the risk of renal failure in patients with hematuria who were exposed to TXA, and the available data does not suggest an increased risk.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".