MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 17449: Predictive Value of Growth Hormone Levels in Cardiogenic Shock Patients

2020· article· en· W3162731440 on OpenAlexaff
Priyanka Boettger, Linda Bingener, Michael Buerke

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockGrowth hormoneInternal medicineSepsisShock (circulatory)HormoneCardiologyGrowth factorMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Despite improved supportive care, cardiogenic shock still has a significantly high mortality. Among many factors, multiple changes in the neuroendocrine system, are responsible for the high morbidity and mortality. Reduced circulating level of insuline-like growth factor and an elevated level of growth hormone are the reported characteristic findings early in the course of sepsis and. The role of insuline-like growth factor and growth hormone levels in patients with cardiogenic shock has not been described. Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes of growth hormone/ insuline-like growth factor 1 axis in patients with cardiogenic shock. Results: When admitted, the average GH value of the patient collective was 2.86 μg / l ± 0.78. The values of the majority of the patients (31/41 = 75.6%) were within the normal range. There we no differences among survivors and non-survivors over the 96h observational period. We did not observe differences between either elder and younger patients or female and male CS patients. On admission IGF-1 levels were 76.23 ± 5.67 μg/l (normal range 70– 270 μg/l) at the lower end of the normal range. Over the next 48-72 hours, the value dropped to 66.8 μg/l. However, the drop was not significant (p = 0.14). Non-survivors showed a more rapid decline compared to survivors which stayed within the normal range.Considering the subgroup analysis, it emerges that the average IGF-1 value of male patients remains above 70 μg/l and thus within the normal range, while the IGF-1 level of the female patients during the course which was up to 55.3 μg/l decreases in the course. Clearly female CS patients showed a steeper decline compared to the male patients. Further younger CS patients showed higher levels compared to patients above 70 years. Conclusion: There were no significant changes of growth hormone levels over time and we observed a decrease of insuline-like growth factor 1 in cardiogenic shock patients. In addition, in non-survivors we detected even lower levels of growth hormone and lower levels of insuline-like growth factor 1. We think that both growth hormone and insuline-like growth factor 1 may have l prognostic value to serve as a marker in cardiogenic shock.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients→French-language works237,207→