MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134241543 · doi:10.1177/0885066606290671

Use of Methylene Blue in Sepsis: A Systematic Review

2006· review· en· W2134241543 on OpenAlex
Edmund Kwok, Daniel Howes

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockVascular resistanceMethylene blueSepsisBolus (digestion)HemodynamicsPopulationAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine if the administration of methylene blue in humans improves hemodynamic status and/or outcome in patients with septic shock. Studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. The review included human studies of patients with septic shock treated with methylene blue in which hemodynamic variables or mortality rates were reported. An electronic form was used to extract items including study design, population characteristics, intervention details, and outcomes. No meta-analysis was performed. Methylene blue administration in patients with septic shock increases mean arterial pressure and systemic vascular resistance while decreasing vasopressor requirements. Increased pulmonary vascular resistance has been reported with bolus administration but might be avoided by continuous infusion. No other ill effects were reported. Effects on mortality have not been adequately evaluated in the literature.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.221 · 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