Systematic review of gender‐ dependent outcomes in sepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Men and women appear to exhibit different susceptibilities to sepsis and possibly divergent outcomes. However, the effect of sex and gender in critical illness outcomes is still controversial and the underlying mechanisms appear to be complex. Objectives We aimed to systematically review and synthesize evidence on the influence of sex on outcomes in critically ill adult patients with sepsis, as reported in published studies specifically including investigation of the effect of sex among their aims. Primary outcome measures include in‐hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU. Search strategy The review was based on focused literature searches (CINAHL, PUBMED, EMBASE and COCHRANE). Methodological quality was assessed through the STROBE checklist and the Cochrane Tool for Bias in Cohort Studies. Meta‐analysis was performed using STATA. Published observational studies addressing outcomes of sepsis among their primary aims and having included gender comparisons among primary outcomes in critically ill adult patients were included. Results A total of eight eligible studies were included. With the exception of mortality, it was not possible to perform meta‐analysis for other outcomes. Included studies reported data on 25,619 patients with sepsis (14 309 male/11 310 female). There is a paucity of well‐designed studies addressing the effect of sex on mortality among patients with sepsis, and absence of studies addressing the effects of sex on multiple organ dysfunction of non‐infectious origin. There was significant heterogeneity among study estimates (p = 0·001; I2=78·1%). Conclusions Although results of data syntheses appear to point towards a small disadvantage for survival among women, our results suggest that data on the impact of sex on sepsis outcomes remain equivocal. Implications for future research include approaches to adjustment for confounders and prospective designs. Relevance to clinical practice Clarifying sex‐related differences in sepsis, if any, is crucial for informing evidence‐based care.
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 | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".