The Use of Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Sepsis Patients: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article was to review the literature regarding the use of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in the management of patients with sepsis and septic shock. A PubMed search was conducted in order to identify publications evaluating the use of PAC as a tool for management and therapeutic guidance in patients with sepsis. The bibliographies of all identified publications were reviewed for additional relevant references. Much information is identified in the literature regarding the indications for pulmonary artery catheterization in the assessment and treatment of patients with sepsis. Although the PAC has been widely used for many years, there is no clear benefit with regard to outcome, and there is controversy regarding its use. It is not clear that use of the PAC contributes to reduced morbidity and mortality in patients with sepsis. The role of the PAC is becoming less clear, as newer, non-invasive techniques are developed for hemodynamic assessment of sepsis patients. Large, well-designed clinical trials are needed to better assess the role and potential benefit from use of the PAC in sepsis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".