The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: A History and a Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) was launched in 2002 as a collaborative initiative of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the International Sepsis Forum (ISF), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). Its objective was, through the development and promulgation of evidence-based guidelines that facilitated the application of knowledge derived from clinical trials to bedside practice, to effect a 25% reduction in the relative risk of death from severe sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: The evolution and content of the SSC is summarized and the scientific basis of the conclusions is reviewed from the literature. RESULTS: The SSC developed evidence-based management guidelines and undertook a broad educational program to implement them by integrating their recommendations into resuscitation and management bundles. The process engaged practitioners in North America, Europe, and South America and was supported by professional societies around the world. It also engendered controversy based on accusations of undue industry influence and some dissatisfaction among individuals who were antagonistic toward protocolization of care. By its conclusion, more than 22,000 patients with sepsis had been entered in the SSC database, and analysis of the results showed that participation in the SSC was associated with a 5.4% absolute survival benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The SSC has impacted the care of septic patients and catalyzed changes that are likely to persist and evolve.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".