Role of obesity in reducing the risk of mortality in sepsis: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, We evaluated obesity, obesity and mortality in patients with septicemia, which increases the mortality risk in sepsis and obese patients. We used data sources, such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, without language restrictions. In this project, a prospective population study was used to compare the septicemia, obesity group and healthy control group, and to analyze the disability rate and mortality rate of the septicemia and obesity groups. The risk of deviation was evaluated by the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment scale (New Caussley Review Scale Scale, NOS). In data synthesis, data with odds ratio (OR), Hazard Ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are collected for Meta-analysis, additionally, publication bias was investigated using a funnel plot. The pooled prevalence of mortality in patients with sepsis and obesity (this included 28,216 individuals) was 21.64% (95% CI: 0.22-0.36; I2=100%; P<0.00001). Nine cohort studies investigated survival in hospitalized patients with obesity and sepsis, and the pooled analysis showed no significant difference in overall mortality (HR=0.74; 95% CI: 0.63-0.87; I2=68.0%; P=0.72). However, in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), the proportion of patients with septicemia and obesity was reduced. (HR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.57-0.90; I2=27%; P=0.005). It was also related to the probability of hospital death (HR=0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.96; I2=77%; P=0.02). At follow-up, there was no change in 30-day and 90-day mortality, but there was a reduction in mortality at the 1-year follow-up. From this meta-analysis, it was found that there was a reduction in mortality in patients with sepsis and obesity, which may confirm the obesity paradox. More prospective trials and mechanistic studies are required to validate this hypothesis.
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 | 0.027 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".