MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1915572763 · doi:10.1186/cc1822

Clinical review: Myocardial depression in sepsis and septic shock.

2002· review· en· W1915572763 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Court, Aseem Kumar, Joseph E. Parrillo, Anand Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockSepsisResuscitationShock (circulatory)ContractilityCardiologyDepression (economics)Internal medicineEjection fractionCardiac function curveNitric oxideHeart failureIntensive care medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myocardial dysfunction frequently accompanies severe sepsis and septic shock. Whereas myocardial depression was previously considered a preterminal event, it is now clear that cardiac dysfunction as evidenced by biventricular dilatation and reduced ejection fraction is present in most patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Myocardial depression exists despite a fluid resuscitation-dependent hyperdynamic state that typically persists in septic shock patients until death or recovery. Cardiac function usually recovers within 7-10 days in survivors. Myocardial dysfunction does not appear to be due to myocardial hypoperfusion but due to circulating depressant factors, including the cytokines tumor necrosis factor alpha and IL-1beta. At a cellular level, reduced myocardial contractility seems to be induced by both nitric oxide-dependent and nitric oxide-independent mechanisms. The present paper reviews both the clinical manifestations and the molecular/cellular mechanisms of sepsis-induced myocardial depression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.009

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations404
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207