MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399917021 · doi:10.1016/j.ccrj.2024.02.002

Statistical analysis plan for the SQUEEZE trial: A trial to determine whether septic shock reversal is quicker in pediatric patients randomized to an early goal-directed fluid-sparing strategy vs. usual care (SQUEEZE)

2024· article· en· W4399917021 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melissa Parker, Gary Foster, Alison Fox‐Robichaud, Karen Choong, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care and Resuscitation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist ProgramCanadian Blood ServicesInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockRandomized controlled trialShock (circulatory)Intensive care medicineSurgerySepsisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The SQUEEZE trial is a multicentred randomized controlled trial which seeks to determine the optimal approach to fluid resuscitation in paediatric septic shock. SQUEEZE also includes a nested translational study, SQUEEZE-D, investigating the value of plasma cell-free DNA for prediction of clinical outcomes. Objective: To present a pre-specified statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the SQUEEZE trial prior to finalizing the trial data set and prior to commencing data analysis. Design: SQUEEZE is a pragmatic, two-arm, open-label, prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial. Setting: Canadian paediatric tertiary care centres. Participants: Paediatric patients with suspected sepsis and persistent signs of shock in need of ongoing resuscitation. Sample size target: 400 participants. Interventions: The trial is designed to compare a fluid-sparing resuscitation strategy to usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome for the SQUEEZE trial is the time to shock reversal (in hours). The primary outcome analysis will assess the difference in time to shock reversal between the intervention and control groups, reported as point estimate with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical test for the primary analysis will be a two-sided t-test. Secondary outcome measures include clinical outcomes and adverse events including measures of organ dysfunction and mortality outcomes. Results: The SAP presented here is reflective of and where necessary clarifies in detail the analysis plan as presented in the trial protocol. The SAP includes a mock CONSORT diagram, figures and tables. Data collection methods are summarized, primary and secondary outcomes are defined, and outcome analyses are described. Conclusions: We have developed a statistical analysis plan for the SQUEEZE Trial for transparency and to align with best practices. Analysis of SQUEEZE Trial data will adhere to the SAP to reduce the risk of bias. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: Definitive trial NCT03080038; Registered Feb 28, 2017. Pilot Trial NCT01973907; Registered Oct 27, 2013.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care and ResuscitationSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207