MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1938833061 · doi:10.4187/respcare.09540186

Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema

2009· article· en· W1938833061 on OpenAlexaff
Sangeeta Mehta, Abdul Hakeem Al-Hashim, Sean Keenan

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalRoyal Columbian HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContinuous positive airway pressureIntubationAnesthesiaVentilation (architecture)Adverse effectPulmonary edemaPositive airway pressureIntensive care medicineLungInternal medicineObstructive sleep apnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) is a common cause of respiratory failure that necessitates endotracheal intubation. In some patients intubation and its attendant complications can be avoided with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Both continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and NIV have been evaluated in patients with ACPE. Compared to conventional treatment, both CPAP and NIV improve vital signs and physiologic variables, and reduce intubation rate, in patients with ACPE. Both CPAP and NIV appear to be well tolerated and are not associated with any serious adverse events. Initial concern that NIV may be associated with a greater risk of myocardial infarction than CPAP was laid to rest by later studies. Despite a physiologic rationale that NIV should offer greater benefit than CPAP, NIV has not been found to offer any advantages regarding intubation rate or mortality compared with CPAP. We review the randomized controlled trials and summarize the evidence on NIV and CPAP in patients with ACPE.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207