The evidence for the use of recombinant factor VIIa in massive bleeding: development of a transfusion policy framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review of the recent randomized control trial evidence of the use of recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) in massive bleeding. rFVIIa is a recombinant genetically engineered clotting factor that has been used for the management of haemophilia patients with inhibitors. There has been increasing use in patients with massive bleeding, even when there is no underlying coagulation disorder present. In November 2006, the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Blood and Blood Products engaged in a consultation and review process with several leading Canadian experts to review and discuss the current evidence up to November 2006. There is little evidence to support the routine use of rFVIIa in massive bleeding on review of 13 randomized controlled trials. rFVIIa should only be considered as part of a transfusion policy framework for massive bleeding after all other transfusion and supportive measures are considered. An example of a policy framework is presented.
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 | 0.142 | 0.272 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".