MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134746903 · doi:10.1517/14740338.4.6.1027

The safety and efficacy of the use of vasopressin in sepsis and septic shock

2005· review· en· W2134746903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen J. Wilson, Saurabh Mehta, Mark C. Bellamy

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasopressinSeptic shockMedicineSepsisIntensive care medicineShock (circulatory)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sepsis remains a significant problem and cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care. Vasopressin infusions are currently used as rescue therapy for the treatment of vasodilatory, catecholamine-resistant septic shock. At present, there are no large randomised, controlled trials in the literature investigating vasopressin in this role, although two such studies are currently ongoing in Canada. This review outlines the pathophysiology of sepsis and that of vasopressin in sepsis and reviews the available evidence for the use of vasopressin in sepsis and septic shock. A review of the safety data for vasopressin in this indication is included. Recommendations for the use of vasopressin in septic shock, along with suggestions for the direction of further work in the field are presented.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207