Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Vasopressin is one of the most important endogenously released stress hormones during shock. In this review, studies published in the past year that add to our understanding of the use of vasopressin in the ICU are discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: Endogenous vasopressin levels are inappropriately low in adults with severe sepsis but not in children with meningococcal septic shock. Vasopressin but not norepinephrine improved renal blood flow and oxygen delivery and prolonged survival in animal models of septic shock. In human vasodilatory shock, the combination of low-dose vasopressin and norepinephrine was found to be safe and effective. In humans, vasopressin can cause gastrointestinal hypoperfusion and ischemic skin lesions. In hypodynamic animal models of sepsis vasopressin compromised oxygen delivery and decreased systemic and gut blood flow.High-dose bolus vasopressin appeared promising in animal studies of hemorrhagic shock and cardiopulmonary arrest and in a large, randomized clinical trial of vasopressin versus epinephrine in human cardiopulmonary arrest with asystole. However, poor neurologic outcomes raised controversy in introducing vasopressin into CPR guidelines. SUMMARY: There is growing evidence that vasopressin infusion in septic shock is safe and effective. Several studies published this year support the hypothesis that vasopressin should be used as a continuous low-dose infusion (between 0.01 and 0.04 U/min in adults) and not titrated as a single vasopressor agent. However, multiple studies highlight the clinical equipoise that exists regarding the use of vasopressin in vasodilatory shock. Guidelines on management of septic shock recommend "cautious use of vasopressin pending further studies."
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".