Protocolized <scp>REDUction</scp> of Non‐Resuscitation Fluids in <scp>SEptic</scp> Shock Patients. A Protocol for the <scp>REDUSE</scp> Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In septic shock, administration of large fluid volumes is associated with poor outcomes. Recent evidence shows that non-resuscitation fluids are the major modifiable source of fluids for patients with septic shock in intensive care units (ICUs). This clinical trial is designed to test the hypothesis that restrictive administration of non-resuscitation fluids improves outcomes compared to usual care. Adult patients admitted to ICUs with septic shock will be randomly assigned within 12 h of admission to receive protocolized restrictive administration of non-resuscitation fluids or usual care. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes are complications during ICU stay up to 90 days (defined as any acute kidney injury or cerebral, coronary, intestinal, or limb ischemia), mechanical ventilation free days within 90 days, and for survivors cognitive function (by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MOCA-BLIND]) and Health-Related Quality of Life (by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale [EQ-VAS]), both at 6 months. In addition, the climate impact of the interventions will be assessed. To detect an absolute reduction in mortality of 7.5%, with an alpha of 5% and a power of 90%, we aim to include 1850 patients. The trial is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Results of primary and secondary clinical outcomes and the environmental outcome will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial Registration: NCT06140147.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".