Recruitment Maneuvers for Acute Lung Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: There are conflicting data regarding the safety and efficacy of recruitment maneuvers (RMs) in patients with acute lung injury (ALI). OBJECTIVES: To summarize the physiologic effects and adverse events in adult patients with ALI receiving RMs. METHODS: Systematic review of case series, observational studies, and randomized clinical trials with pooling of study-level data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty studies (1,185 patients) met inclusion criteria. Oxygenation (31 studies; 636 patients) was significantly increased after an RM (PaO2): 106 versus 193 mm Hg, P = 0.001; and PaO2/FiO2 ratio: 139 versus 251 mm Hg, P < 0.001). There were no persistent, clinically significant changes in hemodynamic parameters after an RM. Ventilatory parameters (32 studies; 548 patients) were not significantly altered by an RM, except for higher PEEP post-RM (11 versus 16 cm H2O; P = 0.02). Hypotension (12%) and desaturation (9%) were the most common adverse events (31 studies; 985 patients). Serious adverse events (e.g., barotrauma [1%] and arrhythmias [1%]) were infrequent. Only 10 (1%) patients had their RMs terminated prematurely due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients with ALI receiving RMs experienced a significant increase in oxygenation, with few serious adverse events. Transient hypotension and desaturation during RMs is common but is self-limited without serious short-term sequelae. Given the uncertain benefit of transient oxygenation improvements in patients with ALI and the lack of information on their influence on clinical outcomes, the routine use of RMs cannot be recommended or discouraged at this time. RMs should be considered for use on an individualized basis in patients with ALI who have life-threatening hypoxemia.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".