Invited Review: Mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury: a perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite advances in critical care, the mortality rate in patients with acute lung injury remains high. Furthermore, most patients who die do so from multisystem organ failure. It has been postulated that ventilator-induced lung injury plays a key role in determining the negative clinical outcome of patients exposed to mechanical ventilation. How mechanical ventilation exerts its detrimental effect is as of yet unknown, but it appears that overdistension of lung units or shear forces generated during repetitive opening and closing of atelectatic lung units exacerbates, or even initiates, significant lung injury and inflammation. The term "biotrauma" has recently been elaborated to describe the process by which stress produced by mechanical ventilation leads to the upregulation of an inflammatory response. For mechanical ventilation to exert its deleterious effect, cells are required to sense mechanical forces and activate intracellular signaling pathways able to communicate the information to its interior. This information must then be integrated in the nucleus, and an appropriate response must be generated to implement and/or modulate its response and that of neighboring cells. In this review, we present a perspective on ventilator-induced lung injury with a focus on mechanisms and clinical implications. We highlight some of the most recent findings, which we believe contribute to the generation and propagation of ventilator-induced lung injury, placing a special emphasis on their implication for future research and clinical therapies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it