MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346703840 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1583282

Vasopressin in Pediatric Critical Care

2016· review· en· W2346703840 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Choong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Intensive Care · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasopressinCopeptinMedicineIntensive care medicineDiabetes insipidusVasopressin receptorSeptic shockTerlipressinShock (circulatory)BioinformaticsPhysiologyInternal medicineSepsisReceptorHepatorenal syndromeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vasopressin is a unique hormone with complex receptor physiology and numerous physiologic functions beyond its well-known vascular actions and osmoregulation. While vasopressin has in the past been primarily used in the management of diabetes insipidus and acute gastrointestinal bleeding, an increased understanding of the physiology of refractory shock, and the role of vasopressin in maintaining cardiovascular homeostasis prompted a renewed interest in the therapeutic roles for this hormone in the critical care setting. Identifying vasopressin-deficient individuals for the purposes of assessing responsiveness to exogenous hormone and prognosticating outcome has expanded research into the evaluation of vasopressin and its precursor, copeptin as useful biomarkers. This review summarizes the current evidence for vasopressin in critically ill children, with a specific focus on its use in the management of shock. We outline important considerations and current guidelines, when considering the use of vasopressin or its analogues in the pediatric critical care setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Intensive CareSame topicElectrolyte and hormonal disordersFrench-language works237,207