MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125618941 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004752

Lactate clearance as a useful biomarker for the prediction of all-cause mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review study protocol

2014· review· en· W2125618941 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhongheng Zhang, Xiao Xu, Kun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitIntensive care medicinePopulationCritically illIntensive careProtocol (science)SepsisSystematic reviewMEDLINEEmergency medicineInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Arterial lactate is a reflection of balance between lactate production and clearance. Accumulating lactate may be a marker of global hypoxia or hypoperfusion. Lactate clearance is the reduction of lactate concentrations with interventional strategies, and it has been associated with increased risk of death in critically ill patients. However, conflicting results exist, which mandates a systematic review to clarify the association between lactate clearance and clinical outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Critically ill adult patients will be included in our analysis. This population will include heterogeneous study participants, including patients with sepsis or severe sepsis, trauma, surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and so on. We will search four databases including EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2014. There will be no language restrictions in the electronic search for studies. Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort study will be employed to assess the reporting quality of included original studies. We will report pooled relative risk of death for those with lactate clearance and those without. The diagnostic performance of lactate clearance in predicting mortality will be explored by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol for the systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO. The study will be disseminated electronically and in print. It will also be presented to conferences related to critical care medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42013006511.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.013
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.428
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.133 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207