Critical care lessons from severe acute respiratory syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a new disease that caused large outbreaks in several countries in the first half of 2003, resulting in infection in more than 8000 people and more than 900 deaths. During that time, a large body of literature rapidly emerged describing the clinical disease, the etiologic viral agent, and management options. This paper reviews the current status of this knowledge base, with particular reference to the critically ill patient. RECENT FINDINGS: Case series of patients from Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and Toronto have characterized the disease with remarkable uniformity. A similarly consistent picture of the SARS patient with respiratory failure has emerged from studies from Toronto and Singapore. Worldwide collaboration led to the rapid identification and gene sequencing of the etiologic virus, SARS-CoV. SUMMARY: SARS is a predominantly respiratory illness, spread through droplets from respiratory secretions and possibly via a fecal-oral route. A small number of "super-spreaders" appear to have contributed to the rapid proliferation of the disease. Infection control precautions are an essential component of management. Approximately 20% of patients develop progressive pulmonary infiltrates and respiratory failure, and the mortality rate is as high as 10%. Treatment strategies with antiviral agents such as ribavirin have not clearly demonstrated a benefit, but high-dose corticosteroids appear to be beneficial in patients with progressive disease. The recent outbreaks highlighted the potential for this disease to overwhelm critical care resources, by the volume of patients and loss of healthcare workers to illness and quarantine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".