MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007236855 · doi:10.1186/cc12908

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with culture negative septic shock compared with patients with culture positive septic shock: a retrospective cohort study

2013· article· en· W2007236855 on OpenAlexaff
Shravan Kethireddy, A. Bengier, H. Lester Kirchner, R. Bruce Light, Yazdan Mirzanejad, Dennis G. Maki, Yaseen M. Arabi, Steven E. Lapinsky, David Simón, Aseem Kumar, Joseph E. Parrillo, Anand Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityUniversity of TorontoSurrey Memorial HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
FundersLomonosov Moscow State UniversityInstituto Milenio en Inmunología e InmunoterapiaUniversidade do Extremo Sul CatarinenseFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do SulFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoSociedade Beneficente Israelita Brasileira Albert EinsteinPostgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
KeywordsSeptic shockMedicineRetrospective cohort studyCohortShock (circulatory)Emergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineSepsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Reliable surveillance methods are indispensable for benchmarking of healthcare-associated infection rates.The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) recently introduced surveillance of ventilator-associated events (VAE), including ventilator-associated conditions (VAC) [1].This new algorithm is amenable to automated implementation and strives for more consistent interpretation.We assess the feasibility and reliability of automated implementation.Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis of an ICU cohort with prospective assessment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in two academic medical centers (January 2011 to June 2012).The algorithm was electronically implemented as specified by the NHSN using minuteto-minute ventilator data.Two minor modifications were developed to improve stability and comparability with manual surveillance (10th percentile and intermittent ventilation).Concordance was assessed between the algorithms and prospective surveillance.Attributable mortality of VAC was estimated by multivariable competing-risk survival analysis.Results: Two thousand and eighty patients contributed 2,296 episodes of mechanical ventilation (MV).VAC incidence was 10.0/1,000 MV days.Prospective surveillance identified 8 VAP cases/1,000 MV days.The original VAC algorithm detected 32% (38/115) of patients affected by VAP; positive predictive value was 25% (38/152).Using the 10th percentile identified the same number of VAC cases, but only 116 were identical.VAC incidence was 24.9/1,000 MV days with the intermittent ventilation modification.Concordance between the original algorithm and the modified versions was suboptimal.Estimates of attributable mortality varied by implementation: original VAC subdistribution hazard ratio (sdHR) = 4.33, 10th percentile sdHR = 6.26 and intermittent ventilation sdHR = 2.40.Conclusions: Concordance between manual VAP surveillance and the VAE algorithm was poor.Although electronic implementation of the VAE algorithm was feasible, small variations considerably altered the events detected and their effect on mortality.Using the current specifications, comparability across institutions using different electronic or manual implementations remains questionable.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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