MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W39157296

CAGS and ACS evidence based reviews in surgery. 35: Efficacy and safety of low-dose hydrocortisone therapy in the treatment of septic shock.

2010· article· en· W39157296 on OpenAlexaff
Prosanto Chaudhury, John C. Marshall, Joseph S. Solomkin

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboSeptic shockHydrocortisoneSepsisShock (circulatory)Randomized controlled trialAnesthesiaPlacebo groupInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose hydrocortisone therapy in patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Nine centres (including 52 intensive care units) in Europe and the Middle East. PATIENTS: Patients with clinical evidence of infection, evidence of systemic response to infection and onset of shock within the previous 72 hours (defined by systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg despite adequate fluid replacement or a need for vasopressors for at least 1 hour) and hypoperfusion or organ dysfunction attributable to sepsis. INTERVENTION: INTERVENTION group (n = 251) was randomly assigned to receive 50 mg of hydrocortisone intravenously, and the control group (n = 248) was randomly assigned to receive placebo every 6 hours for 5 days; the dose was tapered during a 6-day period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Death at 28 days in patients who did not have a response to corticotrophin. RESULTS: In all, 233 (46.7%) patients did not have a response to corticotrophin (125 in the treatment group and 108 in the placebo group). At 28 days, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients in the 2 groups who did not have a response to corticotropin (39.2% in the treatment group and 36.1% in the placebo group, p = 0.69) or between those who had a response to corticotropin (28.8% in the treatment group and 28.7% in the placebo group, p = 1.00). At 28 days, 86 of 251 (34.3%) patients in the treatment group and 78 of 248 (31.5%) in the placebo group had died (p = 0.51). In the treatment group, shock was reversed more quickly than in the placebo group. However, there were more episodes of superinfection, including new sepsis and septic shock. CONCLUSION: Hydrocortisone cannot be recommended as general adjuvant therapy for septic shock (vasopressor responsive), nor can corticotrophin testing be recommended to determine which patients should receive hydrocortisone therapy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→