ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring treatment effects and fluid resuscitation strategies in septic shock: a deep learning-based causal inference approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Postoperative enteral nutrition timing and risk variation in elderly patients with perforated peptic ulcer.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Management of endothelial dysfunction in septic shock: role of albumin administration.Journal of intensive care · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Septic shock exhibits diverse etiologies and patient characteristics, necessitating tailored fluid management. We aimed to compare resuscitation strategies using normal saline, Ringer's lactate, and albumin, and to determine which patient factors are associated with improved outcomes. We analyzed septic shock patients from the MIMIC-IV database, categorizing them by the fluid administered: normal saline, Ringer's lactate, albumin, or their combinations. A deep learning-based causal inference model estimated treatment effects on in-hospital mortality and kidney outcomes (defined as a doubling of creatinine or the initiation of kidney replacement therapy). Multivariable logistic regression was then applied to the individual treatment effects to identify patient characteristics linked to better outcomes for Ringer's lactate and additional albumin infusion compared to normal saline alone. Among 13,527 patients, 17.8% experienced in-hospital mortality and 16.2% developed kidney injury. Ringer's lactate reduced mortality by 2.33% and kidney injury by 1.41% compared to normal saline. Adding albumin to normal saline further reduced mortality by 1.20% and kidney outcomes by 0.71%. The combination of Ringer's lactate and albumin provided the greatest benefit (mortality: -3.07%, kidney injury: -3.00%). Patients with high SOFA scores, low albumin, or high lactate levels benefited more from normal saline, whereas those with low eGFR or on vasopressors were less likely to benefit from albumin. Ringer's lactate, particularly when combined with albumin, is superior to normal saline in reducing mortality and kidney injury in septic shock patients, underscoring the need for personalized fluid management based on patient-specific factors.
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.