A Comparative Study of the Protein C Pathway in Septic and Nonseptic Patients with Organ Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Severe sepsis is associated with an exacerbated procoagulant state with protein C (PC) system impairment. In contrast, the inflammatory and coagulation status of nonseptic patients with organ failure (OF) is less documented. OBJECTIVES: To compare coagulation activation, focusing on the PC system, and inflammatory status in septic and nonseptic patients with OF. METHODS: Thirty patients with severe sepsis and 30 nonseptic patients were recruited at the onset of OF and compared with 30 matched healthy subjects. We performed an extensive analysis of the PC pathway, including plasma protein measurements and quantification of leukocyte expression of PC system receptors. In addition, we analyzed the inflammatory status, based on inflammation-related gene leukocyte expression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We observed coagulation activation, reflected by a similar increase in tissue factor mRNA expression, in the two patient groups when compared with the healthy subjects. Soluble thrombomodulin levels were higher in septic patients than in healthy control subjects, whereas PC, protein S, and soluble endothelial cell PC receptor levels were lower. Similar results were obtained in nonseptic patients with OF. Monocyte thrombomodulin overexpression, together with increased circulating levels of activated PC, suggests that the capacity for PC activation is at least partly preserved in both settings. No difference in the inflammatory profile was found between septic and nonseptic patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pathogenesis of OF in critical care patients is characterized by an overwhelming systemic inflammatory response and by exacerbated coagulation activation, independently of whether or not infection is the triggering event. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00361725).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".