Use of Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid, and Thiamine in Adults with Septic Shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale In December 2016, a single-center study describing significant improvements in mortality among a small group of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock treated with hydrocortisone, high-dose ascorbic acid, and thiamine (HAT therapy) was published online. Objectives This study aims to describe the administration of HAT therapy among U.S. adults with septic shock before and after study publication and to compare outcomes between patients who received and did not receive HAT therapy. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of 379 acute care hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database including patients discharged from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2018. Exposure was quarter year of hospital discharge; postpublication was defined as January 2017 onward (July 2017 for effectiveness analyses). The primary outcome was receipt of HAT at least once during hospitalization. We conducted unadjusted segmented regression analyses to examine temporal trends in HAT administration. In patients with early septic shock, we compared the association of early HAT therapy (within 2 d of hospitalization) with hospital mortality using multivariable modeling and propensity score matching. Measurements and Main Results Among 338,597 patients, 3,574 (1.1%) received HAT therapy, 98.7% in the postpublication period. HAT administration increased from 0.03% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02–0.04) before publication to 2.65% (95% CI, 2.46–2.83) in the last quarter, with a significant step up in use after December 2016 (P < 0.001). Receipt of early HAT was associated with higher hospital mortality (28.2% vs. 19.7%; P < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.02–1.33]; primary propensity-matched model adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.02–1.40]). Conclusions Publication of a single-center retrospective study was associated with significantly increased administration of HAT. Among patients with early septic shock, receipt of HAT was not associated with mortality benefit.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".