MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018640860 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0000000000000116

Fluid choices impact outcome in septic shock

2014· review· en· W2018640860 on OpenAlexaff
James Joshua Douglas, Keith R. Walley

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationIntensive care medicineSeptic shockShock (circulatory)OxygenationClinical trialSepsisAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We discuss the goals of resuscitation, in both the early and the later phases, measures of organ perfusion, fluid responsiveness and the consequences of tissue edema. RECENT FINDINGS: The cost of over-aggressive fluid resuscitation is increased organ failure and mortality. In anticipation of the upcoming trials on early goal-directed therapy, we explore strategies to maximize effectiveness of resuscitation. Furthermore, we review recent data on the choice of fluid therapy. SUMMARY: Rapid diagnosis and early fluid resuscitation are crucial to patients with septic shock, initially with the primary goal to relieve the overt tissue hypoxia. Early fluid therapy is important with the caveat that patients must show an increase in their cardiac output. Beyond 6-12 h further positive fluid balance may not usefully improve tissue oxygenation and may be counterproductive.

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)0.006
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207