Mixed Cardiogenic Shock: A Proposal for Standardized Classification, a Hemodynamic Definition, and Framework for Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) has evolved from a singular cold-and wet-hemodynamic profile. Data from registries and clinical trials have contributed to a broader recognition that although all patients with CS have insufficient cardiac output leading to end organ hypoperfusion, there is considerable variability in CS acuity, underlying etiologies, volume status, and systemic vascular resistance. Mixed CS can be broadly categorized as CS with at least 1 additional shock state . Mixed CS states are now the second leading cause of shock in contemporary coronary intensive care units, but there is little high-quality evidence to guide routine care, and there are no standardized classification frameworks or well-established hemodynamic definitions. This primer summarizes the current epidemiology and proposes a classification framework and invasive hemodynamic parameters to guide categorization that could be applied to help better phenotype patients captured in registries and trials, as well as guide management of mixed CS states.
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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".