Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An abundant literature in the field of sepsis focuses on the role of NO. Inhibiting NO synthesis corrects certain hemodynamic parameters of septic shock but failed to improve outcome in patients. Conversely, administration of NO donors lowers blood pressure but restores microcirculatory flow in patients with sepsis. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to comprehensively summarize the results of studies exploring the effects of systemic NO donors in sepsis. We included both clinical and preclinical data. We described the details surrounding NO donor administration, and the results obtained in each study were regrouped in broad categories. In the case of animal research, we limited our data collection to in vivo protocols and described the sepsis model. Finally, we critically appraised all the studies included in the review. Overall, the reviewed publications aimed for physiopathological description rather than clinical relevance and did not meet the required criteria for extrapolation to clinical practice. With this reserve, NO donors usually improved the outcomes measured (e.g., mortality, pulmonary hypertension, tissue/organ perfusion, etc.) but also lowered blood pressure. We conclude that our findings warrant further animal experimentation designed to maximize clinical relevance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it