MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115984244 · doi:10.1177/0885066620982585

Macrocirculatory and Microcirculatory Endpoints in Sepsis Resuscitation

2020· article· en· W3115984244 on OpenAlexaff
Garrick Mok, Ariel Hendin, Peter M. Reardon, Michael Hickey, Sara Gray, Krishan Yadav

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt Joseph's Health CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationSepsisSeptic shockPerfusionMicrocirculationCapillary refillIntensive care medicineShock (circulatory)Mean arterial pressureCardiologyBlood pressureEmergency medicineInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sepsis is a common disease process encountered by physicians. Sepsis can lead to septic shock, which carries a hospital mortality rate in excess of 40%. Although the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines recommend targeting a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and normalization of lactate, these endpoints do not necessarily result in tissue perfusion in states of shock. While MAP and lactate are commonly used markers in resuscitation, clinicians may be able to improve their resuscitation by broadening their assessment of the microcirculation, which more adequately reflects tissue perfusion. As such, in order to achieve a successful resuscitation, clinicians must optimize both macrocirculatory (MAP, cardiac output) and microcirculatory (proportion of perfused vessels, lactate, mottling, capillary refill time) endpoints. This review will summarize various macrocirculatory and microcirculatory markers of perfusion that can be used to guide the initial resuscitation of patients with sepsis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations35
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intensive Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207