Inotropes and vasopressors: more than haemodynamics!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circulatory shock is characterized by arterial hypotension requiring fluid resuscitation combined with inotropes and/or vasopressors to correct the otherwise life‐threatening impairment of oxygen supply to peripheral tissues. Catecholamines represent the current therapeutic choice, but this standard is only based on empirical clinical experience. Although there is evidence that some catecholamines may be better than others, it is a matter of debate which one may be the most effective and/or the safest for the different situations. In their review in this issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology, Bangash et al. provide an overview of the pharmacology as well as the available clinical data on the therapeutic use of endogenous catecholamines, their synthetic derivatives and a range of other agents (vasopressin and its analogues, PDE inhibitors and levosimendan). The authors point out that, despite well‐established receptor pharmacology, the clinical effects of these treatments are poorly understood. Hence, further investigations are essential to determine which catecholamine, or, in a broader sense, which alternative vasopressor and/or inotrope is the most appropriate for a particular clinical condition. LINKED ARTICLES This article is a commentary on Bangash et al., pp. 2015–2033 of this issue and is commented on by De Backer and Scolletta, pp. 2012–2014 of this issue. To view Bangash et al. visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476‐5381.2011.01588.x and to view De Backer and Scolletta visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476‐5381.2011.01746.x
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".