MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409313926 · doi:10.1016/s1441-2772(23)02099-9

Sepsis research: where have we gone wrong?

2006· article· en· W2409313926 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care and Resuscitation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpossibilityMedicineSepsisIntensive care medicineEconomic shortagePsychological interventionClinical trialDiseaseHost responseImmunologyNursingPathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a strong biological rationale and no shortage of potential therapeutic targets, attempts to modulate the host response in sepsis over the past two decades have been profoundly disappointing. Even when efficacy has been demonstrated in clinical trials, the magnitude of benefit is small. The author argues that this results not from any intrinsic impossibility of treating sepsis as a disease, nor a lack of biologically efficacious interventions, but rather from shortcomings in three domains of clinical investigation - conceptual, methodological and organisational. (non-author abstract)

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care and ResuscitationSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207