MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386535859 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290963

Study protocol: A systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the influence of coagulopathy and immune activation on new onset atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis

2023· review· en· W4386535859 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Downes, Ingeborg Welters, Brian Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryObservational studyGuidelineMEDLINEAtrial fibrillationMeta-analysisIntensive care unitSepsisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common arrhythmia affecting critically ill patients with sepsis. NOAF is associated with increased intensive care unit mortality, increased hospital mortality, development of heart failure and increased risk of permanent atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic events such as stroke. The pathophysiology of NOAF has been outlined, however, a knowledge gap exists regarding the association between abnormalities in coagulation and immune biomarkers, and the risk of developing NOAF in patients with sepsis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline (PRISMA-P) and the Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies guideline (MOOSE). We will conduct the literature search in Medline, Scopus and Cochrane Library. We will include studies that report data in adult patients (>18 years) with sepsis that develop NOAF. We will extract data from studies that report at least one coagulation or immune biomarker. Risk of bias will be assessed by using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB2) for non-randomized and randomized trials respectively. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be utilized in assessing the quality of evidence. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will explore the scientific literature regarding the association between coagulation and immune activation in critically ill patients with sepsis, who develop NOAF. The findings will add to the existing knowledge base of NOAF in sepsis, highlight areas of uncertainty and identify future areas of interest to guide and improve management strategies for NOAF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration details. CRD42022385225 (PROSPERO).

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.024
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.006

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.159 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→