Severity of illness and risk of death associated with pulmonary artery catheter use*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the use of the pulmonary artery catheter and mortality rate in critically ill patients with a higher vs. a lower severity of illness. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary care university teaching hospital from March 1988 to March 1998. PATIENTS: A total of 7,310 critically ill adult patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measure was hospital mortality rate, controlled by multivariable logistic regression within four patient groups based on severity of illness. Cutoffs for severity of illness were chosen based on Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score 25th percentiles. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated no increased risk of death associated with exposure to the pulmonary artery catheter in the population as a whole. The associated odds ratio of hospital death for the entire cohort was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.21). Subgroup analysis of severity of illness revealed the highest risk of death to be associated with the lowest APACHE II score quartile vs. a decreased associated mortality rate with the highest APACHE II score quartile after adjustment with multivariable logistic regression (APACHE II <18: odds ratio, 2.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.81; APACHE II 18-24: odds ratio, 1.64, 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.17; APACHE II 25-31: odds ratio, 1.00, 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.24; APACHE II >31: odds ratio, 0.80, 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the pulmonary artery catheter may decrease mortality rate in the most severely ill while increasing it in a population with a lower severity of illness. These findings underscore the necessity of examining the effect of severity of illness in future randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".