Dexamethasone, blood glucose and <scp>CONSORT</scp> guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Tien et al. for their prospective randomised study on dexamethasone and blood glucose levels in diabetic and non-diabetic patients 1. We would like to invite the authors to address several questions that we have. We were surprised that the study did not follow CONSORT guidelines 2, which define the internationally accepted standard for reporting randomised controlled trials. Did the authors follow these guidelines and can they provide any insight into whether Anaesthesia insisted on a CONSORT statement during the publishing process? Key elements are missing; for instance, there was no mention of trial registration: can the investigators confirm that their outcome measures did not deviate from those determined a priori, as we could not find their trial registered on the website clinicaltrials.gov. It is also unclear where the study took place – are the researchers confident that their results are unaffected by population differences between Chile and the USA due to social determinants of health and pharmacokinetics? The dose of dexamethasone administered (8 mg) is higher than that normally used in the UK and Canada for postoperative anti-emesis. De Oliveira et al. concluded in their meta-analysis that there was no clinical advantage of 8 mg vs 4 mg dexamethasone on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting 3. Do the authors think that postoperative blood glucose elevation might be avoided without affecting anti-emesis by simply not administering as much dexamethasone to patients?
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 | 0.256 | 0.481 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.025 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".