P.139 The use of tranexamic acid in craniotomy: a Canadian survey and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is growing evidence supporting the intraoperative use of an antifibrinolytic agent, tranexamic acid (TXA) to limit blood loss; however, use of TXA has not been widely adopted in cranial procedures. We aimed to determine the practice pattern regarding the use of TXA in craniotomy in Canada, and review the literature. Methods: A survey was conducted among the Canadian centres on TXA use during elective craniotomy. Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials reporting the use of TXA in craniotomy for tumors. The results included the estimated blood loss and the dose used. Results: TXA was not routinely used in elective craniotomy but used selectively in 6 of 15 centres based on risk, intraoperative bleeding, or surgeon preference. The dose was 1 g with or without infusion. 6 studies were identified through literature search. The dose varied between 10–20 mg/kg bolus and 1 mg/kg/hr infusion, or a 2 g bolus alone. All studies reported a significant reduction in blood loss with TXA. Conclusions: We found widely divergent indications for intraoperative TXA use in elective craniotomy throughout Canada. This is in keeping with limited evidence in the literature. Further studies are needed to inform the decision regarding TXA use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".