Association of body mass index with mortality of sepsis or septic shock: an updated meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of body mass index (BMI) on mortality of sepsis remain unknown, since previous meta-analyses have reported conflicting results. Several observational studies published recently have provided new evidence. Thus, we performed this updated meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochran Library were searched for articles published before February 10, 2023. Observational studies that assessed the association of BMIs with mortality of sepsis patients aged > 18 years were selected. We excluded studies of which data were unavailable for quantitative synthesis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were the effect measure, which were combined using fixed-effect or random-effect models. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied for quality assessment. Subgroups analyses were conducted according to potential confounders. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (105,159 patients) were included in the overall analysis, which indicated that overweight and obese BMIs were associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.88 and OR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.82, respectively). The association was not significant in patients aged ≤ 50 years (OR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.68-1.14 and OR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.50-1.18, respectively). In addition, the relationship between morbidly obesity and mortality was not significant (OR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.32). CONCLUSIONS: ) are associated with reduced mortality of patients with sepsis or septic shock, although such survival advantage was not found in all crowds. Trial registration The protocol of this study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42023399559).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it