MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140019582 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006818

Serum Lipopolysaccharide Binding Protein Levels Predict Severity of Lung Injury and Mortality in Patients with Severe Sepsis

2009· article· en· W2140019582 on OpenAlexaff
Jesús Villar, Lina Pérez‐Méndez, Elena Espinosa, Carlos Flores, Jesús Blanco, Arturo Muriel, Santiago Basaldúa, Mercedes Muros, Lluís Blanch, Antonio Artigas, Robert M. Kacmarek

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIFundación Canaria de Investigación y Salud
KeywordsMedicineARDSLipopolysaccharide binding proteinSepsisInternal medicineGastroenterologyBiomarkerOdds ratioProspective cohort studyIntensive care unitSeverity of illnessC-reactive proteinSystemic inflammatory response syndromeRespiratory distressWhite blood cellAcute-phase proteinLungSurgeryInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a need for biomarkers insuring identification of septic patients at high-risk for death. We performed a prospective, multicenter, observational study to investigate the time-course of lipopolysaccharide binding protein (LBP) serum levels in patients with severe sepsis and examined whether serial serum levels of LBP could be used as a marker of outcome. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: LBP serum levels at study entry, at 48 hours and at day-7 were measured in 180 patients with severe sepsis. Data regarding the nature of infections, disease severity, development of acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and intensive care unit (ICU) outcome were recorded. LBP serum levels were similar in survivors and non-survivors at study entry (117.4+/-75.7 microg/mL vs. 129.8+/-71.3 microg/mL, P = 0.249) but there were significant differences at 48 hours (77.2+/-57.0 vs. 121.2+/-73.4 microg/mL, P<0.0001) and at day-7 (64.7+/-45.8 vs. 89.7+/-61.1 microg/ml, p = 0.017). At 48 hours, LBP levels were significantly higher in ARDS patients than in ALI patients (112.5+/-71.8 microg/ml vs. 76.6+/-55.9 microg/ml, P = 0.0001). An increase of LBP levels at 48 hours was associated with higher mortality (odds ratio 3.97; 95%CI: 1.84-8.56; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Serial LBP serum measurements may offer a clinically useful biomarker for identification of patients with severe sepsis having the worst outcomes and the highest probability of developing sepsis-induced ARDS.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations61
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207