Mean arterial pressure targets in intensive care unit patients receiving noradrenaline: An international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate intensive care doctors' views about a large-scale pragmatic minimum mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets trial and their attitudes and beliefs about minimum MAP targets in different clinical scenarios. Design: An online survey was conducted. Setting and participants: An online survey was distributed to intensive care doctors in sites participating in a large-scale international randomised clinical trial evaluating oxygen therapy targets in 15 countries and to additional intensive care clinicians from Canada. Main outcome measures: Outcomes included the expressed level of support for a large pragmatic trial to evaluate minimum MAP targets in critically ill adults and stated current practice and acceptability of minimum MAP for specific scenarios. Results: The response rate to our survey for respondents who work in sites participating in the mega randomised registry trial research program was 265 out of 701 (37.8%), with an additional 56 out of 256 (21.8%) responses obtained from a direct email containing a link to the survey sent to intensive care clinicians in Canada. A total of 309 of 321 respondents (96.3%) were supportive, in principle, of conducting a very large pragmatic trial to evaluate MAP targets in intensive care unit patients receiving noradrenaline. The commonest response in all scenarios was to agree that the optimal minimum MAP target was uncertain. In all scenarios, except for active bleeding, the most common reported minimum MAP target was 65 mmHg; for patients who were actively bleeding, the most common reported target was 60 mmHg. Conclusions: Our data suggest that intensive care clinicians are broadly supportive of a large-scale pragmatic minimum MAP targets in intensive care unit patients receiving noradrenaline.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".