Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical care medicine is a young specialty that has experienced an expansion of research efforts in the last decade. Many physiologic and therapeutic principles or “dogmas” have been challenged, resulting in major “shifts” and minor “drifts” in thinking. This article reviews the available literature about some of these important and sometimes controversial changes, with emphasis on the practical implications of the concepts. Specific areas discussed include supply-dependent oxygen consumption in critical illness, manipulation of the cytokine cascade in sepsis, ventilation in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), blood transfusion in the critically ill, the concept of the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), the need for nutritional support in the critically ill, and others. Many of the changes discussed involve the recognition that the host response to a severe insult is exceedingly complex, and the understanding of this response and the effects of it at a tissue and cellular level are incomplete. As a result, the ability to impact the outcome of sepsis and MODS has thus far been disappointing, with the possible exception of “lung-protective” ventilation. The final challenge in critical care medicine is to gain information that will allow the practitioner to better understand, prevent, and treat the complex events that result in organ and cellular dysfunction. Future changes in dogma are welcome if they help achieve these goals.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".