Exploring Hematoma Expansion Shift With Recombinant Factor VIIa: A Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hematoma expansion shift (HES) analysis can be used to assess the biological effect of a hemostatic therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage. In this study, we applied HES analysis to individual patient data from 4 randomized controlled trials evaluating rFVIIa (recombinant factor VIIa) 80 μg/kg to placebo. METHODS: We generated polychotomous strata of HES using absolute growth thresholds (≤0/<6/≥6 mL) and quintiles of percent volume change. The relationship between treatment and HES was assessed using proportional odds models. Differences in subgroups based on baseline volume (≥ or <20 mL), and time from symptom onset to treatment (≤ or >2 hours) were explored with testing for interactions. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 721 patients. At 24 hours, 36% (134/369) of rFVIIa-treated patients exhibited no hematoma expansion as compared with 25% of placebo (88/352)-treated patients. Significant expansion (≥6 mL) was reduced by 10% in those treated with rFVIIa-(adjusted common odds ratio [acOR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.43–0.75]). An examination of percent change similarly showed a shift across the spectrum of expansion (acOR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47–0.80]). In both groups, mild-to-moderate expansion was observed in 38% to 47% of patients, depending on the threshold used. Differences in absolute HES between the rFVIIa and placebo groups were more pronounced in patients with baseline hemorrhage volumes ≥20 mL (acOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30–0.76] versus <20 mL: acOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.47–0.95]; P interaction =0.02). No treatment interaction in patients treated within 2 or after 2 hours from onset was observed (acOR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.19–0.91 versus >2 hours: acOR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44–0.79]; P interaction =0.30). CONCLUSIONS: The association between rFVIIa and hematoma growth arrest is most pronounced in patients with larger baseline volumes but is evident across the full spectrum of treated 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 | 0.051 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".