MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406033571 · doi:10.1080/15563650.2016.1180390

A systematic analysis of methylene blue for drug-induced shock

2016· review· en· W2406033571 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon J. Warrick, Anita Paula Tataru, Susan C. Smolinske

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Toxicology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiltiazemAmlodipineCochrane LibraryContext (archaeology)AnesthesiaVerapamilPharmacologyInternal medicineMeta-analysisBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Pharmacologically induced shock can be refractory to standard resuscitation. Methylene blue (MB) acts to prevent nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation and may be a potential treatment for refractory shock. OBJECTIVE: A systematic analysis of the literature to evaluate MB in pharmacologically induced shock. Primary outcome was survival and secondary outcome was hemodynamic improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of MedLine/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, Google Scholar and Google was performed 10 August 2015 using a combination of text words and keywords related to MB, shock and specific drugs. We included primary literature articles reporting clinical outcomes in humans. RESULTS: The searches yielded 928 citations, with 255 exact duplicates. Of the 673 entries screened, 16 citations met study criteria and comprised 17 cases. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) represented ten cases (six amlodipine, two verapamil, and two diltiazem), atenolol three cases as coingestant with amlodipine, five metformin, one ibuprofen, and one multidrug (quetiapine, carbamazepine, valproic acid, oxazepam, and fluoxetine). Twelve patients survived and nine had hemodynamic improvement following MB administration. Four did not respond to MB but survived with other advanced resuscitative measures. None of the seven cases had BP improvement and four died when lipid was given prior to MB, compared to one death and nine cases of BP improvement when lipid was not given. In all cases, MB was used after failing several other treatments. Bolus doses ranging from 1 to 3 mg/kg, with repeat boluses or maintenance infusions. Reported adverse events were temporary self-limited blue discolorations. CONCLUSION: While there are compelling cases describing an improved hemodynamic status following MB, there are also several cases without observed change. Currently, there is not enough evidence available to recommend the routine administration of MB in refractory pharmacologically induced shock.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0310.028
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations75
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ToxicologySame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207