MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157510302 · doi:10.1186/s40635-021-00383-x

Sepsis: deriving biological meaning and clinical applications from high-dimensional data

2021· review· en· W3157510302 on OpenAlexaff
Alex R. Schuurman, Tom D. Y. Reijnders, Robert F. J. Kullberg, Joe M. Butler, Tom van der Poll, W. Joost Wiersinga

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine Experimental · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekEuropean Commission
KeywordsOmicsMedicineSepsisData scienceGenomicsEpigenomicsProteomicsLipidomicsBioinformaticsComputational biologyIntensive care medicineComputer scienceBiologyImmunologyGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pathophysiology of sepsis is multi-facetted and highly complex. As sepsis is a leading cause of global mortality that still lacks targeted therapies, increased understanding of its pathogenesis is vital for improving clinical care and outcomes. An increasing number of investigations seeks to unravel the complexity of sepsis through high-dimensional data analysis, enabled by advances in -omics technologies. Here, we summarize progress in the following major -omics fields: genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, lipidomics, and microbiomics. We describe what these fields can teach us about sepsis, and highlight current trends and future challenges. Finally, we focus on multi-omics integration, and discuss the challenges in deriving biological meaning and clinical applications from these types of data.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations51
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine ExperimentalSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207