MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256450237 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.302

TC-325 (HEMOSPRAYTM) versus Standard of Care in Managing Malignant Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial: 2017 Category Award (GI Bleeding)

2017· article· en· W4256450237 on OpenAlexaff
Yen‐I Chen, Yidan Lu, Jonathan Wyse, Waqqas Afif, Talat Bessissow, Genevieve White, Myriam Martel, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemostasisRandomized controlled trialEndoscopyGastrointestinal bleedingUpper gastrointestinal bleedingMalignancySurgeryBlood transfusionClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Standard of care (SOC) in managing malignant gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), including traditional endoscopic, radiological, surgical and radiotherapeutic approaches, is limited in hemostatic effectiveness. TC-325 is a novel endoscopic hemostatic powder that has shown promise in managing such patients. Methods: Adult patients were randomized at urgent endoscopy to TC-325 or SOC if they presented with upper or lower GIB and a known luminal GI malignancy confirmed to be the source of bleeding. The primary outcome was immediate hemostasis (absence of bleeding for at least 3 minutes after endoscopic therapy). Secondary outcomes included clinical rebleeding, transfusion use, ICU, LOS, additional treatment and mortality. Results: A pre-planned 20 patients were randomized to TC-325 or SOC (25% female, age 67.2±15.9 years, 2.9±1.7 comorbidities). Adopted research methods performed well in securing informed consent and measuring pertinent clinical outcomes. An initial source of bleeding was found in 85% of patients, with oozing noted in 95.0%. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 90% (95%CI: 59.6;98.2) of patients treated initially with TC-325 versus 40% (16.8;68.7) in the SOC group. After failed immediate hemostasis with SOC, 83.3% (43.7; 97.0) of patients crossed over to TC-325, with hemostasis then being achieved at the index endoscopy in 80% (37.6;96.4) of these cross-overs. None of the TC-325 patients crossed over to SOC (the sole patient having failed TC-325 died of exsanguination at index gastroscopy from rupture of a malignant inferior mesenteric artery aneurysm before other endoscopic modalities could be attempted). Overall, hemostasis at index endoscopy was achieved in 87.7% (62.1;96.3) whether initial treatment with TC-325 or following SOC failure. Rebleeding was lower in the TC-325 group (22.2% (0;56.1)) compared to patients treated with SOC (60% (23.1;96.9)). Other outcomes are shown in table 1. Conclusion: This pilot trial is the first to assess TC-325 in malignant bleeding and demonstrates the feasibility of a larger randomized trial with regards to recruitment and adequate powering for hemostatic outcomes. Although this trial was not designed to seek statistically significant differences, the results suggest that TC-325 may indeed be a promising hemostatic modality in managing patients with malignant bleeding both in achieving immediate hemostasis and decreased subsequent rebleeding compared to existing standard of care.Table: Table. Primary and secondary outcomes

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207