ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Speaking of sepsis: semantics, syntax, and slang.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- SepsisJournal of medical microbiology · 2025Review
- Unpacking the sepsis controversy.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical language is in a constant state of evolution. Its grammar and vocabulary are not fixed by rigid rules. The interdisciplinary field of sepsis has become a meeting point for new insights arising from advances in systems biology, epidemiology, mechanistic understandings of disease process and antimicrobial interventions. This convergence has gained from our recent experience of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 and possibilities inferred from emerging information technology. Biomedical descriptors have diverged along disciplinary lines creating an unfortunate disconnect between clinical and laboratory-based terminology. The resulting confusion between clinically determined sepsis and laboratory verified bloodstream infection raises practical questions that affect daily operational processes in the ward, clinic and laboratory. There is an urgent need to understand how the clinical sepsis pathway and corresponding clinical laboratory workflow can be better aligned as a single coherent entity. There is also an implicit need to understand how this process should produce actionable information in a timely and orderly manner, and identify residual obselete terminology that has crept into common usage. A widely accepted sepsis epistemology, ontology and heuristic will help us improve our clinical management of sepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.