Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Vasoactive drugs are the mainstay of hemodynamic management of vasodilatory shock when fluids fail to restore adequate tissue perfusion. In this review, studies published during the past year that increase our understanding of the use of vasoactive drugs in the ICU are discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: The Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial did not find a difference between low-dose vasopressin and norepinephrine vs. norepinephrine alone in the hemodynamic support of septic shock, suggesting that either approach is reasonable. However, vasopressin may be beneficial in the less severe septic shock subgroup. In this study, patients who were also treated with corticosteroids, vasopressin, compared with norepinephrine, were associated with significantly decreased mortality. Epinephrine, phenylephrine and terlipressin can be used safely in the ICU setting as first-line therapy for septic shock. The incidence of global left ventricular hypokinesia in patients with septic shock is 60%, much higher than previously described. Although dobutamine remains the gold standard therapy for septic myocardial depression, combined milrinone and metoprolol therapy may be an effective alternative therapy. SUMMARY: Current evidence does not support a clear recommendation of one vasopressor over another; indeed norepinephrine, vasopressin, terlipressin, phenylephrine and epinephrine may be used safely with similar survival outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".