Assessing the Course of Organ Dysfunction Using Joint Longitudinal and Time-to-Event Modeling in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-mortality septic shock outcomes (e.g., Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) are important clinical endpoints in pivotal sepsis trials. However, comparisons of observed longitudinal non-mortality outcomes between study groups can be biased if death is unequal between study groups or is associated with an intervention (i.e., informative censoring). We compared the effects of vasopressin versus norepinephrine on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial to illustrate the use of joint modeling to help minimize potential bias from informative censoring. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial data. SETTING: Twenty-seven ICUs in Canada, Australia, and United States. SUBJECTS: = 374). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: = 0.25), and there was a positive association between higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and patient mortality, characteristics that suggest a potential for bias from informative censoring of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores by death. The best-fitting joint longitudinal (i.e., linear mixed-effects model) and survival (i.e., Cox proportional hazards model for the time-to-death) model showed that norepinephrine was associated with a more rapid improvement in the total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score through day 4, and then the daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores converged and overlapped for the remainder of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term reversal of organ dysfunction occurred more rapidly with norepinephrine compared with vasopressin, although differences between study arms did not persist after day 4. Joint models are an accessible methodology that could be used in critical care trials to assess the effects of interventions on the longitudinal progression of key outcomes (e.g., organ dysfunction, biomarkers, or quality of life) that may be informatively truncated by death or other censoring events.
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 | 0.033 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".