Fluids in Sepsis and Septic Shock (FISSH): protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Observational evidence suggests physiological benefits and lower mortality with lower chloride solutions; however, 0.9% saline remains the most widely used fluid worldwide. Given uncertainty regarding the association of lower chloride on mortality, it is unlikely that practice will change without direct randomised clinical trial (RCT) evidence. This pilot RCT will investigate the feasibility of a large-scale trial directly comparing low chloride with high chloride fluids in patients with septic shock. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, concealed, blinded parallel-group multicentre pilot trial. We will include adult critically ill patients with septic shock, defined as ongoing hypotension despite 1 L of fluid, or a serum lactate >4 mmol/L, who are within 6 hours of hospital presentation or rapid response team activation. We will exclude patients if they have an aetiology of shock other than sepsis, if they have acute burn injury, elevated intracranial pressure, intent to withdraw life support or previous enrolment in this or a competing trial. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to a low chloride fluid strategy or a high chloride fluid strategy for the duration of their ICU stay or until 30 days postrandomisation. Clinicians, patients, families and research staff will be blinded. The primary outcome for this trial will be feasibility, assessed by consent rate, recruitment success and protocol adherence. Patient-important clinical outcomes include mortality, receipt of renal replacement therapy, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay and surrogate outcomes of incidence of acidosis, hyperkalaemia and acute kidney injury. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This pilot trial will test the feasibility of conducting the main trial, which will examine the effect of high versus low chloride fluids in patients with septic shock on patient-important outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02748382, registered 8 April 2016. PROTOCOL DATE: 1 July 2016.
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 | 0.054 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.021 |
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".