MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1194172272 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0000000000000217

Microcirculatory disorders during septic shock

2015· review· en· W1194172272 on OpenAlexaff
Hafid Ait‐Oufella, Simon Bourcier, S. Lehoux, Bertrand Guidet

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockResuscitationShock (circulatory)PathophysiologyIntensive care medicineHemodynamicsPerfusionMicrocirculationBlood flowCardiologyBlood pressureSepsisInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite the progress made over the past 20 years in the treatment of septic shock, mortality remains high. Microcirculatory disorders raise considerable interest aiming to improve the understanding of the physiopathology of septic shock and its management. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous experimental and clinical studies have gradually focused on the analysis of microcirculatory blood flow and identified alterations in small vessels. These microcirculatory abnormalities appear early, are heterogeneous, and are directly linked to organ failure, as well as the patient's prognosis. These anomalies vary from one patient to the other, and their evolution during resuscitation cannot be predicted by the isolated analysis of global hemodynamic parameters such as blood pressure or heart rate. SUMMARY: Microcirculatory disorders appear at a central place of the physiopathology and are highly associated with the patient prognosis; it therefore seems important to develop and integrate parameters reflecting tissue perfusion in the management of septic shock.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.423
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.116 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207