MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416739960 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics15233021

Assessment of Vascular Endothelial Dysfunction in Septic Patients Using Brachial Flow-Mediated Dilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4416739960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lana Kattan, Sara Abulola, Mohamed H. Elsayed, Abderrezzaq Soltani, Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim, Zaid H. Maayah

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQatar University
KeywordsSepsisEndothelial dysfunctionBrachial arteryEndothelial activationRisk stratificationSurrogate endpointSystemic inflammatory response syndrome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objective: Sepsis remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, making early risk stratification and prognosis critical. Vascular endothelial dysfunction is a hallmark of sepsis pathogenesis, with evidence suggesting that endothelial injury may occur early, preceding organ failure. Brachial flow-mediated dilation (FMD), a validated noninvasive ultrasound technique measuring endothelium-dependent vasodilation, serves as a surrogate marker of endothelial function, where lower FMD values reflect impaired function. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the validity and quality of evidence on using FMD to measure vascular endothelial dysfunction in septic patients by comparing FMD (i) between septic patients and non-septic controls and (ii) between sepsis non-survivors and survivors. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until November 2024 for clinical studies assessing FMD in septic patients. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis, and quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Eight studies were included, and seven underwent quantitative synthesis (385 septic patients, 106 non-survivors and 217 survivors). Compared with non-septic controls, septic patients demonstrated significantly lower FMD (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) = −2.1617; 95% CI −3.8349 to −0.4885; p = 0.0113; I2 = 98.2939%). Within the sepsis cohort, non-survivors showed significantly attenuated FMD compared to survivors (pooled SMD = −0.7003; 95% CI −1.1133 to −0.2873; p = 0.001; I2 = 60.5593%). Conclusions: FMD shows potential as a surrogate marker of endothelial dysfunction for sepsis risk assessment, as evident by lower FMD in septic patients, particularly non-survivors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207