Fluid resuscitation with albumin or saline in the intensive care unit did not affect 28-day mortality rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TherapeuticsSeptember 1, 2004Fluid resuscitation with albumin or saline in the intensive care unit did not affect 28-day mortality ratesDeborah Cook, MDDeborah Cook, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (D.C.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2004-141-2-029 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationThe SAFE Study Investigators. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2247-56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15163774Clinical Impact RatingsEmergency Med: Hospitalists: Critical Care: References1 Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers. BMJ. 1998;317:235-40. [PMID: 9677209] Google Scholar2 Cook D. Is albumin safe? N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2294-6. [PMID: 15163781] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (D.C.) Nextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails September 1, 2004Volume 141, Issue 2Page: 29KeywordsAlbuminsBurnsCardiac surgeryClinical trialsCritical careDeath ratesHemodynamicsHospitalistsIntensive care unitsLiver transplantationPopulation statisticsRespiratorsResuscitationSaline solutions ePublished: 9 March 2020 Issue Published: September 1, 2004 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2004 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".