Tranexamic acid to prevent bleeding after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a pilot project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) can occur up to a month following the procedure but is typically seen within the first week. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a member of a class of drugs called antifibrinolytic agents. It reduces fibrinolysis by slowing down the conversion of plasminogen to plasmin, which may prevent bleeding. The goal of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of using tranexamic acid after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥2 cm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to prevent DPPB. Methods: This was a single centre feasibility study conducted at the Kingston Health Sciences Centre in 2021. After the polypectomy was completed, IV tranexamic acid was given [1 gram of TXA in 100 mL of normal saline] and infused over a 10-min interval. The participants received tranexamic acid 1 gram PO TID to be taken for 5 days. Results: A total of 25 patients were enrolled with a mean polyp size of 3 cm. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 7 patients (28%) and all of these were treated with soft coagulation. Two patients had clipping for suspected muscle injury. All 25 patients received IV TXA post-procedure. Sixteen patients (64%) took every dose of the prescribed pills. One patient presented with post-polypectomy bleeding. All patients completed the day 30 follow-up phone call. There were no major adverse events. Conclusions: TXA to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) was feasible to use with no major adverse events reported. A randomized controlled study will be needed to see if TXA can significantly reduce DPPB.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".