Intensive insulin therapy and starch (HES 200/0.5) had some risk and no clear benefit in severe sepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club17 June 2008Intensive insulin therapy and starch (HES 200/0.5) had some risk and no clear benefit in severe sepsisDeborah Cook, MD, Lauralyn McIntyre, MDDeborah Cook, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (D.C.)Search for more papers by this author, Lauralyn McIntyre, MDUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (L.M.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-12-200806170-02004 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationBrunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:125-39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18184958Clinical Impact RatingsEmergency Med: Hospitalists: Infectious Disease: Critical Care: References1 Zarychanski R, Turgeon AF, Fergusson DA, et al. Renal outcomes following hydroxylethyl starch resuscitation: a meta-analysis of randomized trials [abstract]. Intensive Care Med (submitted). Google Scholar2 van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1359-67. [PMID: 11794168] Google Scholar3 A multi-centre, open-label randomized stratified controlled trial of the effects of blood glucose management on 90-day all-cause mortality in a heterogeneous population of intensive care unit patients. www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN04968275 (accessed on 25 April 2008). Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (D.C.)University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (L.M.)This article was published at Annals.org on 3 June 2008. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 17 June 2008Volume 148, Issue 12Page: JC4-4KeywordsAcute renal failureHypoglycemiaInsulinIntensive care unitsResuscitationSepsisStarches ePublished: 17 June 2008 Issue Published: 17 June 2008 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".