MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092507656 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.103044

Exploring the pathophysiology of post-sepsis syndrome to identify therapeutic opportunities

2020· review· en· W3092507656 on OpenAlexafffund
Elisabeth C. van der Slikke, Andy Y. An, Robert E. W. Hancock, Hjalmar R. Bouma

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersServierCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenKillam TrustsNierstichting
KeywordsSepsisMedicineIntensive care medicinePathophysiologyQuality of life (healthcare)Immune DysfunctionImmune systemImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sepsis is a major health problem worldwide. As the number of sepsis cases increases, so does the number of sepsis survivors who suffer from "post-sepsis syndrome" after hospital discharge. This syndrome involves deficits in multiple systems, including the immune, cognitive, psychiatric, cardiovascular, and renal systems. Combined, these detrimental consequences lead to rehospitalizations, poorer quality of life, and increased mortality. Understanding the pathophysiology of these issues is crucial to develop new therapeutic opportunities to improve survival rate and quality of life of sepsis survivors. Such novel strategies include modulating the immune system and addressing mitochondrial dysfunction. A sepsis follow-up clinic may be useful to identify long-term health issues associated with post-sepsis syndrome and evaluate existing and novel strategies to improve the lives of sepsis survivors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.144 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations111
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207