MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021775548 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181aa6117

Fever in the critically ill medical patient

2009· review· en· W2021775548 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntipyreticIntensive care medicineCritically illIntensive careClinical trialCritical illnessInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fever, commonly defined by a temperature of >or=38.3 degrees C (101 degrees F), occurs in approximately one half of patients admitted to intensive care units. Fever may be attributed to both infectious and noninfectious causes, and its development in critically ill adult medical patients is associated with an increased risk for death. Although it is widespread and clinically accepted practice to therapeutically lower temperature in patients with hyperthermic syndromes, patients with marked hyperpyrexia, and selected populations such as those with neurologic impairment, it is controversial whether most medical patients with moderate degrees of fever should be treated with antipyretic or direct cooling therapies. Although treatment of fever may improve patient comfort and reduce metabolic demand, fever is a normal adaptive response to infection and its suppression is potentially harmful. Clinical trials specifically comparing fever management strategies in neurologically intact critically ill medical patients are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.371 · 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