Steroids in fluid and/or vasoactive infusion dependent pediatric shock: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians often administer corticosteroids for the treatment of fluid and vasoactive infusion dependent pediatric shock. This use of corticosteroids is controversial, however, and has never been studied in a pediatric randomized controlled trial (RCT). This pilot trial will determine the feasibility of a larger RCT on the role of corticosteroids in pediatric shock. METHODS/DESIGN: Steroids in Fluid and/or Vasoactive Infusion Dependent Pediatric Shock (STRIPES) is a pragmatic, seven-center, double-blind, pilot RCT. We aim to randomize 72 pediatric patients with fluid and vasoactive infusion dependent shock to receive either hydrocortisone or a saline placebo for 7 days or until clinical stability, whichever occurs first. The primary outcome of this pilot trial is the feasibility of recruitment, defined as the number of patients enrolled over a 1-year period. Secondary outcomes include the frequency of, and reasons for, open-label steroid use, protocol adherence, incidence of mortality and corticosteroid-associated adverse events, time to discontinuation of inotropes, and feasibility of blood sampling. DISCUSSION: Corticosteroids are used for the treatment of pediatric shock without sufficient evidence to support this practice. While there is a scientific rationale and limited data supporting their use in this setting, there is also evidence from other populations suggesting potential harm. The STRIPES pilot study will assess the feasibility of a larger, much needed trial powered for clinically important outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02044159.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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".