ArticleScientific reports2024
Continuous monitoring of physiological data using the patient vital status fusion score in septic critical care patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- MetaboSense: An Integrated Quantum Dot-Mediated Aptamer Assay and Modular Microfluidic Platform for Continuous In-Line Monitoring of Lung Metabolism During Ex Vivo Perfusion.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Corridor-based relative severity assessment of the canine anaesthetic course.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Refining humane endpoint detection by time-series forecasting and threshold definition using a multivariate severity score.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- PhysioDimClassifier-imbalance data classifier model for IoMT-based remote patient monitoring systems.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Advancements in Managing Choledocholithiasis and Acute Cholangitis in the Elderly: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Exploring the value of blood urea nitrogen-to-albumin ratio in patients with acute pancreatitis admitted to the intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate and standardized methods for assessing the vital status of patients are crucial for patient care and scientific research. This study introduces the Patient Vital Status (PVS), which quantifies and contextualizes a patient's physical status based on continuous variables such as vital signs and deviations from age-dependent normative values. The vital signs, heart rate, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, mean arterial blood pressure, and temperature were selected as input to the PVS pipeline. The method was applied to 70 pediatric patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), and its efficacy was evaluated by matching high values with septic events at different time points in patient care. Septic events included systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and suspected or proven sepsis. The comparison of maximum PVS values between the presence and absence of a septic event showed significant differences (SIRS/No SIRS: p < 0.0001, η
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.