MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394692068 · doi:10.1177/08404704241240956

Reducing the burden of preventable deaths from sepsis in Canada: A need for a national sepsis action plan

2024· article· en· W4394692068 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fatima Sheikh, Victoria Chechulina, Gary Garber, Kathryn Hendrick, Niranjan Kissoon, Laurie Proulx, Kristine Russell, Alison Fox‐Robichaud, Lisa Schwartz, Kali Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCanadian Arthritis Patient AllianceUniversity of TorontoBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaCanada Council for the ArtsWestern UniversityCanadian Medical Protective AssociationMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSepsisAction planMedicineContext (archaeology)Intensive care medicineHarmAction (physics)Surviving Sepsis CampaignSevere sepsisSeptic shockPolitical scienceSurgeryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sepsis is a global health threat with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite clinical practice guidelines and developed health systems, sepsis is often unrecognized or misdiagnosed, leading to preventable harm. In Canada, sepsis is responsible for 1 in 20 deaths and is a significant driver of health system costs. Despite being a signatory to the World Health Organization's Resolution WHA 70.7, adopted in 2017, Canada has not lived up to its commitment. Many existing sepsis policies were developed in response to a specific tragedy, and there is no national sepsis action plan. In this article, we describe the burden of sepsis, provide examples of existing, context-specific, reactionary sepsis policies, and urge a coordinated, proactive Canadian sepsis action plan to reduce the burden of sepsis.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0100.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management Forum→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→