Low-dose hydrocortisone did not improve survival in patients with septic shock but reversed shock earlier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club17 June 2008Low-dose hydrocortisone did not improve survival in patients with septic shock but reversed shock earlierFrancois Lamontagne, MD, MSc, Maureen O. Meade, MD, MScFrancois Lamontagne, MD, MScHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (F.L., M.O.M.)Search for more papers by this author, Maureen O. Meade, MD, MScHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (F.L., M.O.M.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-12-200806170-02006 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationSprung CL, Annane D, Keh D, et al. Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:111-24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18184957Clinical Impact RatingsEmergency Med: Hospitalists: Infectious Disease: Critical Care: Reference1 Annane D, Bellissant E, Bollaert PE, et al. Corticosteroids for severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2004;329:480. [PMID: 15289273] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (F.L., M.O.M.)This article was published at Annals.org on 3 June 2008. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byMedical Students Can Help Avoid the Expert Bias in Medicine 17 June 2008Volume 148, Issue 12Page: JC4-6KeywordsAdrenocorticotropic hormoneCritical careIntensive care unitsPharmacistsPopulation statisticsSepsisSuperinfections 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".