Antifibrinolytic and Adjunct Hemostatic Agents: The Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Anticoagulation CollaborativE Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To derive systematic-review informed, modified Delphi consensus regarding antifibrinolytic and adjunct hemostatic agents in neonates and children supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for the Pediatric ECMO Anticoagulation CollaborativE consensus conference. DATA SOURCES: A structured literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases from January 1988 to May 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Use of antifibrinolytics (epsilon-aminocaproic acid [EACA] or tranexamic acid), recombinant factor VII activated (rFVIIa), or topical hemostatic agents (THAs). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors reviewed all citations independently, with a third independent reviewer resolving conflicts. Eleven references were used for data extraction and informed recommendations. Evidence tables were constructed using a standardized data extraction form. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. The evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Forty-eight experts met over 2 years to develop evidence-based recommendations and, when evidence was lacking, expert-based consensus statements for the management of bleeding and thrombotic complications in pediatric ECMO patients. A web-based modified Delphi process was used to build consensus via the Research And Development/University of California Appropriateness Method. Consensus was defined as greater than 80% agreement. One weak recommendation and three consensus statements are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supporting recommendations for administration of antifibrinolytics (EACA or tranexamic acid), rFVIIa, and THAs were sparse and inconclusive. Much work remains to determine effective and safe usage strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".