Sex differences in pediatric sepsis—a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric sepsis remains a leading cause of childhood morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite advancements in modern medicine, it accounts for more than 3 million childhood deaths per year. Multiple studies have emphasized that sex and gender have an impact on the treatment and outcome of various diseases. Adult studies have revealed sex differences in pathophysiological responses to septic shock, as well as a possible protective effect of estrogens on critical illness. Sex-specific maturational and developmental differences in host immunology have been previously demonstrated for neonatal and pediatric age groups. At present, there are no studies assessing the impact of sex on outcomes of children with sepsis. METHODS: The goal of this study is to assess sex-specific differences in childhood sepsis survival outcomes. We will systematically assess associations of sex and gender with outcomes in pediatric sepsis in the literature by performing a systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases. We will include all English language randomized trials and cohort studies. The study population will include children > 37 weeks gestational age and < 18 years of age. Exposure will be sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock and the main comparison will be between male and female sex. The primary outcome will be hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes will be the pediatric intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. DISCUSSION: Results from this review are expected to provide important information on the association of sex with the outcomes of pediatric sepsis. If an association is noted, this study may serve as a foundation for further research evaluating the pathophysiological aspects as well as potential socioeconomic factors responsible for the clinically detected sex differences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022315753.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".