[Clinical effect of haemoperfusion combined with continuous veno-veno haemofiltration in treatment of paraquat poisoning: a Meta-analysis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically analyze the effect of haemoperfusion (HP) combined with continuous veno-veno haemofiltration (CVVH) in the treatment of the patients with paraquat poisoning (PQP). METHODS: ), and incidence of circulatory and respiratory failure. The literature data were extracted by two researchers independently, the quality of the literature was evaluated according to the modified Jadad score table or Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the Meta-analysis was carried out by RevMan 5.3 software; and the stability of the results of Meta-analysis was tested by sensitivity analysis. Further, the publication bias was analyzed through drawing a funnel diagram. RESULTS: in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (SMD = 0.23, 95%CI = 0.29 to 0.98, P = 0.000 3). Furthermore, the incidence of circulatory failure in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.19 to 0.37, P < 0.000 01), but the incidence of respiratory failure was significantly higher than that in the control group (OR = 4.14, 95%CI = 3.00 to 5.72, P < 0.000 01). The influence of heterogeneity on statistical results was excluded in the sensitivity analysis, and funnel plot diagram was applied to indicate the publication bias of mortality and survival time of the dead patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combined with HP alone, HP combined with CVVH could better improve liver and kidney function and oxygenation state of PQP patients, reduce the incidence of early circulatory failure, prolong the survival time and reduce the death rate of PQP 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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".