MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative Effectiveness of Fludrocortisone and Hydrocortisone vs Hydrocortisone Alone Among Patients With Septic Shock

2023· article· en· W4361000395 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas A. Bosch, Bijan Teja, Anica C. Law, Brandon Pang, S. Reza Jafarzadeh, Allan J. Walkey

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal Hormones and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsFludrocortisoneMedicineHydrocortisoneSeptic shockShock (circulatory)AnesthesiaInternal medicineSepsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Patients with septic shock may benefit from the initiation of corticosteroids. However, the comparative effectiveness of the 2 most studied corticosteroid regimens (hydrocortisone with fludrocortisone vs hydrocortisone alone) is unclear. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of adding fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone vs hydrocortisone alone among patients with septic shock using target trial emulation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study from 2016 to 2020 used the enhanced claims-based Premier Healthcare Database, which included approximately 25% of US hospitalizations. Participants were adult patients hospitalized with septic shock and receiving norepinephrine who began hydrocortisone treatment. Data analysis was performed from May 2022 to December 2022. Exposure: Addition of fludrocortisone on the same calendar day that hydrocortisone treatment was initiated vs use of hydrocortisone alone. Main Outcome and Measures: Composite of hospital death or discharge to hospice. Adjusted risk differences were calculated using doubly robust targeted maximum likelihood estimation. Results: Analyses included 88 275 patients, 2280 who began treatment with hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone (median [IQR] age, 64 [54-73] years; 1041 female; 1239 male) and 85 995 (median [IQR] age, 67 [57-76] years; 42 136 female; 43 859 male) who began treatment with hydrocortisone alone. The primary composite outcome of death in hospital or discharge to hospice occurred among 1076 (47.2%) patients treated with hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone vs 43 669 (50.8%) treated with hydrocortisone alone (adjusted absolute risk difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -4.2% to -3.1%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness cohort study among adult patients with septic shock who began hydrocortisone treatment, the addition of fludrocortisone was superior to hydrocortisone alone.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations68
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Internal MedicineSame topicAdrenal Hormones and DisordersFrench-language works237,207