Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the issues needing to be resolved to design, implement, and complete a definitive randomized controlled trial of adjunctive corticosteroid use in children with septic shock. DESIGN: Pediatric studies from MEDLINE (1946 to January 2015) and Embase (1947 to January 2015) that addressed adrenal function or steroid use in critically ill children with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, or septic shock were reviewed and their relevant points discussed. RESULTS: There is considerable interest in the field of corticosteroids in pediatric septic shock, which has not as yet translated into a much needed randomized controlled trial. We found that the issues that need to be resolved include identification of the target population, achievement of individual and community equipoise, selection of a patient centered, clinically meaningful primary outcome measure, and consideration of the adverse effects of corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: We strongly believe that the time has come to conduct a trial on the use of corticosteroids in pediatric septic shock and that the question to be answered is Will corticosteroids given to children with septic shock result in a benefit to some patients without resulting in harm to others? Answering this question will require a collaborative and committed effort on the parts of ethics boards, families, clinicians, and researchers to actually make it happen once and for all, and we propose an international planning meeting of interested parties to achieve agreement on these identified issues.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".