{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027491408934707903, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0057273768613974796, 'mean_word_length': 5.154929577464789, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fever: suppress or let it ride?

While our ability to detect and manage fever has evolved since its conceptualization in the 5(th) century BC, controversy remains over the best evidence-based practices regarding if and when to treat this physiologic derangement in the critically ill. There are two basic fields of thought: (I) fever should be suppressed because its metabolic costs outweigh its potential physiologic benefit in an already stressed host; vs. (II) fever is a protective adaptive response that should be allowed to run its course under most circumstances. The latter approach, sometime referred to as the "let it ride" philosophy, has been supported by several recent randomized controlled trials like that of Young et al. [2015], which are challenging earlier observational studies and may be pushing the pendulum away from the Pavlovian treatment response.