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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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