MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763560650 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e96b

174: Corticosteroid Therapy in Neonatal Management of Shock

2015· article· en· W2763560650 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Altit, M Vigny-Pau, Keith J. Barrington, Véronique Dorval, Annie Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHydrocortisoneSeptic shockGestational ageSepsisShock (circulatory)Birth weightCorticosteroidApgar scoreNeonatal intensive care unitAnesthesiaPediatricsInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controversy exists about the management of neonatal septic shock. Hydrocortisone (HC) is used during septic course in older children and adults, but has been rarely studied in neonates. To describe hydrocortisone administration in septic shock in our neonatal intensive care unit and determine if variations in practice are associated with improved survival. The effects of HC therapy for septic shock were retrospectively evaluated in neonates admitted to our unit between 2010 and 2013. Data regarding timing of HC administration and effects on survival were analysed. Thirty-five infants were treated for neonatal shock during the study period (80% culture proven sepsis). A total of 23 patients out of the 35 received HC during the course of their shock (average cumulative dose of 16±16 mg/kg). The two groups (hydrocortisone vs no-hydrocortisone) did not differ significantly in terms of gestational age (25.7±1.4 vs 26.8±1.8 weeks, P=0.68), birth weight (994±194 vs 964±371 grams, P=0.34) and age at onset of shock (12.2±18 vs 9.9±8.1 days, P=0.93). Exposure to antenatal steroids (87% vs 100%, P=054) and APGAR scores (6±2 and 6±2, P=0.69) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Patients who received hydrocortisone were less likely to survive (26 vs 83%, P=0.03) and were sicker in general (vasoactive index score 48±51 vs 10±8, P=0.000). Timing of hydrocortisone administration was on average 49±63 hours after the onset of shock. Although we noted a trend toward later hydrocortisone administration in survivors (79±92 vs 38±51 hours, P=0,26), this difference was not statistically significant. Patients that received hydrocortisone and survived had a trend toward a more prolonged hospitalisation (age at discharge 47.4±5.8 vs 42±5.3 weeks of corrected gestational age, P=0.08). In our centre, hydrocortisone administration in the context of neonatal septic shock tends to be early and in patients presenting with a more severe clinical picture. However, this is without any improvement in survival. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify hydrocortisone's role in septic shock management in the term and preterm newborn.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsFrench-language works237,207