Impact of cytomegalovirus reactivation on clinical outcomes in immunocompetent critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation in critically ill patients is a well-recognized phenomenon with an incidence as high as 71 %. A number of studies have investigated the association between CMV reactivation and outcomes in critically ill patients with conflicting results. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of CMV reactivation on patient-centered outcomes and measures of health resource utilization in immunocompetent critically ill patients. METHODS: In consultation with a research librarian, a search strategy will be developed and electronic databases (i.e., Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)) will be searched for original studies. Selected grey literature sources will be hand-searched. Search themes will include cytomegalovirus, intensive care unit, and sepsis. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment, and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. Pooled effect estimates of the impact of CMV reactivation on selected patient-centered outcomes and measures of health resource utilization will be described. DISCUSSION: This systematic review aims to explore the impact of CMV reactivation on patient-centered outcomes and health resource utilization in immunocompetent critically ill patients. Our results will help to better define the burden of disease associated with CMV reactivation. Indeed, evidence to date suggests increased mortality in this patient population. However, the relationship between CMV reactivation and health resource utilization remains less clear. Based on our results, future study on the impact of CMV treatment or prophylaxis on outcomes (including those other than mortality) may be warranted. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016035446.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.054 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".