Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To highlight the role of relative adrenal insufficiency in the outcome of critically ill patients with sepsis and systematically review the literature regarding the use of corticosteroids for management of severe sepsis/septic shock. DATA SOURCES: A computerized search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database was undertaken from 1966 to March 2003 using the search terms intensive care unit, critical care, corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, adrenal insufficiency, sepsis, and septic shock. Bibliographies of all articles retrieved were searched for relevant articles not identified by the computerized search. DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS: Six trials were identified after publication of the meta-analyses (1995), with a total of 505 patients. The results of these trials in septic shock suggest that low-dose corticosteroids can reduce vasopressor requirements and hasten reversal of shock. Some of these trials suggested a possible mortality benefit from therapy, and no trial demonstrated an increase in mortality or significant adverse effects. The benefit of this therapy may depend on the presence of relative adrenal insufficiency, as identified by the adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation test. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose corticosteroids should be administered to patients with septic shock empirically, but should be discontinued if relative adrenal insufficiency is not confirmed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".