Drotrecogin alfa (activated)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although the PROWESS trial demonstrated a mortality benefit, subsequent studies in different patient populations have not reproduced the effect. As a result, concerns have been expressed about the clinical effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated). Therefore the aim of this audit was to review the clinical impact of drotrecogin alfa (activated) when used outside clinical trials. METHODS: A retrospective review of ICU charts and medical records of patients who had received drotrecogin alfa (activated) in the five largest users of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in England. Patients characteristics details at ICU admission and vital status at hospital discharge were recorded. The severity of illness was assessed by the APACHE II score (using first 24 h admission data) and the number of organ dysfunctions. Adverse incidents were recorded and any sequence effect explored. RESULTS: In all, 351 patients received drotrecogin alfa (activated) between December 2002 and November 2005. Of those, 201 (57.2%) were male, and 177 (50.4%) were admitted after recent surgery. The patients' average age was 61.8 yr. The mean admission APACHE II score was 23.3 and the average number of dysfunctional organs on admission was 3.3. The hospital mortality was 46.7% (164 deaths). The expected number of deaths calculated by using the APACHE II risk of death was 173 (49.3%) and by number of sepsis induced organ failures 210 (59.7%). Overall, there were 33 (9.4%) adverse incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Expected mortality derived from both the APACHE II score and organ dysfunctions suggests that drotrecogin alfa (activated) does reduce mortality. Serious adverse incidents occurred in 5.1% patients; however, the direct contributing effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) cannot be established from this type of audit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".