Does intensive insulin therapy really reduce mortality in critically ill surgical patients? A reanalysis of meta-analytic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two recent systematic reviews evaluating intensive insulin therapy (IIT) in critically ill patients grouped randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by type of intensive care unit (ICU). The more recent review found that IIT reduced mortality in patients admitted to a surgical ICU, but not in those admitted to medical ICUs or mixed medical-surgical ICUs, or in all patients combined. Our objective was to determine whether IIT saves lives in critically ill surgical patients regardless of the type of ICU. Pooling mortality data from surgical and medical subgroups in mixed-ICU RCTs (16 trials) with RCTs conducted exclusively in surgical ICUs (five trials) and in medical ICUs (five trials), respectively, showed no effect of IIT in the subgroups of surgical patients (risk ratio = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69 to 1.04, P = 0.11; I2 = 51%, 95% CI = 1 to 75%) or of medical patients (risk ratio = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.09, P = 0.61; I2 = 0%, 95% CI = 0 to 41%). There was no differential effect between subgroups (interaction P = 0.10). There was statistical heterogeneity in the surgical subgroup, with some trials demonstrating significant benefit and others demonstrating significant harm, but no surgical subgroup consistently benefited from IIT. Such a reanalysis suggests that IIT does not reduce mortality in critically ill surgical patients or medical patients. Further insights may come from individual patient data meta-analyses or from future large multicenter RCTs in more narrowly defined subgroups of surgical patients.
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 | 0.057 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".