Prognostic Value of PCO2 Gap in Adult Septic Shock Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sepsis cases caused substantial mortality and a significant burden on healthcare costs and resources. To tackle this problem, there has been discussion surrounding O2 parameters as it has a distinct outcome in septic patients. This review aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the central venous-arterial carbon dioxide difference (PCO2) gap in patients with septic shock. A comprehensive systematic search was performed through electronic databases including Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase for studies focusing on the use of PCO2 gap as a mortality predictor in septic shock patients. Other secondary outcomes such as mean arterial pressure, lactate clearance, the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score, and intensive care unit length of stay were also measured. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A total of 8 studies were analysed. The mortality rate (odds ratio=0.50, 95% CI=0.28-0.87, P < .01) and lactate levels (mean difference [MD] = -0.98; 95% CI=-1.62 to -0.35; P=.001) of the low PCO2 gap group were significantly lower than the high gap group. The low gap group had a significantly higher mean arterial pressure compared to the high gap group (MD=4.54; 95% CI=2.14 to 6.95; P=.001). There were no pronounced outcomes in acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score and intensive care unit length of stay. PCO2 gap can potentially be used as a marker for mortality rate in septic shock patients. It is also significantly associated with other predictors, such as mean arterial pressure and lactate clearance.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".