MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Conditional Treatment Effect Analysis of Two Infusion Rates for Fluid Challenges in Critically Ill Patients: A Secondary Analysis of Balanced Solution versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) Trial

2023· article· en· W4319068084 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando G. Zampieri, Lucas Petri Damiani, Sean M. Bagshaw, Matthew W. Semler, Matthew M. Churpek, Luciano C. P. Azevedo, Rodrigo C. Figueiredo, Viviane Cordeiro Veiga, Rodrigo Biondi, Flavio R. Freitas, Flávia Ribeiro Machado, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMinistério da SaúdeU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineCritically illPost-hoc analysisRandomized controlled trialClinical trialSepsisSubgroup analysisIntensive careEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Optimal infusion rate for fluid challenges in critically ill patients is unknown. A large clinical trial comparing two different infusion rates yielded neutral results. Conditional average treatment effect (CATE) assessment may aid in tailoring therapy. Objectives To estimate CATE in patients enrolled in the BaSICS trial and to assess the effects of receiving CATE model–recommended treatment in terms of hospital mortality. Methods Post hoc analysis of the BaSICS trial assessing the effect of two infusion rates for the fluid challenge (fast, 999 ml/h, control group; vs. slow, 333 ml/h, intervention group) on hospital mortality. CATE was estimated as the difference in outcome for treatment arms in counterfactuals obtained from a Bayesian model trained in the first half of the trial adjusted for predictors hypothesized to interact with the intervention. The model recommended slow or fast infusion or made no recommendation in the second half. A threshold greater than 0.90 probability of benefit was considered. Results A total of 10,465 patients were analyzed. The model was trained in 5,230 patients and tested in 5,235 patients. A recommendation could be made in the test set in 19% of patients (14% were recommended the control group and 5% the treatment group); for 81% of patients, no recommendation could be made. Slow infusion was more frequently recommended in cases of planned admissions in younger patients; fast infusion was recommended for older patients with sepsis. Slow infusion rate in the subgroup of patients in the test set in which slow infusion was recommended by the model was associated with an odds ratio of 0.58 (95% credible interval of 0.32–0.90; 0.99 posterior probability of benefit) for hospital mortality. Fast infusion in the subgroup in which the model recommended fast infusion was associated with an odds ratio of 0.72 (credible intervals from 0.54 to 0.91; probability of benefit >0.99). Conclusions Estimation of CATEs from counterfactual probabilities in data from BaSICS provided additional information on trial data. Agreement between treatment recommendation and actual treatment was associated with lower hospital mortality. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02875873).

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207