Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the physiology and the published literature on the role of vasopressin in shock in children. DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE (1966-2007), EMBASE (1980-2007), and the Cochrane Library, using the terms vasopressin, terlipressin, and shock and synonyms or related terms for relevant studies in pediatrics. We searched the online ISRCTN-Current Controlled Trials registry for ongoing trials. We reviewed the reference lists of all identified studies and reviews as well as personal files to identify other published studies. RESULTS: Beneficial effects have been reported in vasodilatory shock and asystolic cardiac arrest in adults. Solid evidence for vasopressin use in children is scant. Observational studies have reported an improvement in blood pressure and rapid weaning off catecholamines during administration of low-dose vasopressin. Dosing in children is extrapolated from adult studies. CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin offers promise in shock and cardiac arrest in children. However, in view of the limited experience with vasopressin, it should be used with caution. Results of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in children with vasodilatory shock will be available soon.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".