MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407761504 · doi:10.1186/s13049-025-01336-z

The revised Canadian Bleeding (CAN-BLEED) score for risk stratification of bleeding trauma patients: a mixed retrospective—prospective cohort study

2025· article· en· W4407761504 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandre Tran, Tyler Lamb, Shannon M. Fernando, Manya Charette, Marie‐Joe Nemnom, Maher Matar, Jacinthe Lampron, Christian Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalLakeridge HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBleedRetrospective cohort studyRisk stratificationProspective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traumatic hemorrhage is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. There is considerable interest in risk stratification tools to aid with early activation of intervention pathways for bleeding patients. In this study, we refine the Canadian Bleeding (CAN-BLEED) score for the prediction of major interventions in bleeding trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a mixed retrospective-prospective cohort study. We included a retrospective cohort from the CAN-BLEED derivation study, from September 2014 to September 2017. We also conducted a prospective cohort from May 2019 to August 2021 and included both datasets for refinement of the CAN-BLEED score. The primary outcome was major intervention, defined by a composite of massive transfusion, embolization, or surgery for hemostasis. Predictors were pre-specified based on previous validation work. We used a stepdown procedure and regression coefficients to create a clinical risk stratification score. We used bootstrap internal validation to assess optimism-corrected performance. RESULTS: We included 1368 patients in the overall cohort. Incidence of penetrating injury was 23% and median injury severity score was 17. The overall incidence of the need for major intervention was 17%. The revised score included 8 variables: systolic blood pressure, heart rate, lactate, penetrating mechanism, pelvic instability, Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma positive for free fluid, computed tomography positive for free fluid, or contrast extravasation. The C-statistic for the simplified score is 0.89. A score cut-off of less than 2 points yielded a 97% (94-98%) sensitivity in ruling out the need for major intervention. CONCLUSION: The revised CAN-BLEED score offers a clinically intuitive and internally validated tool with excellent performance in identifying patients requiring major intervention for traumatic bleeding. Further efforts are required to evaluate its performance with an external validation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency MedicineSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207