The relative incidence of cardiogenic and septic shock in neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative incidence of cardiogenic and septic shock in term neonates and identify findings that help differentiate the two entities. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective chart review of term neonates presenting to British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH) with decompensated shock of an undiagnosed etiology between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2013. Charts were reviewed to determine the underlying diagnoses of all neonates meeting our inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized as having septic, cardiogenic, or other etiologies of shock. We then evaluated potential demographic, clinical, and biochemical parameters that could help differentiate between septic and cardiogenic shock. RESULTS: Cardiogenic shock was more common than septic shock (relative risk=1.53). A history of cyanosis was suggestive of cardiogenic shock (positive likelihood ratio, LR+=3.2 and negative likelihood ratio, LR-=0.4). Presence of a murmur or gallop (LR+=5.4, LR-=0.3), or decreased femoral pulses (LR+=5.1, LR-=0.5) on physical exam were also suggestive of cardiogenic shock as was cardiomegaly on chest x-ray (LR+=4.9, LR-=0.5). Notably, temperature instability (LR+=0.7, LR-=1.8) and white blood cell count elevation or depression (LR+=0.8, LR-=1.1) were all poor predictors of septic shock. CONCLUSION: Cardiogenic shock is a more common cause of decompensated shock than septic shock. A history of cyanosis, murmur or gallop, or decreased femoral pulses on exam and cardiomegaly on chest x-ray are useful indicators of cardiogenic shock. In evaluating the neonate with decompensated shock, early consideration for Cardiology consultation and interventions to treat the underlying condition is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".