MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971110416 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0b013e31828a89a2

Mechanical Ventilation Strategies in Children With Acute Lung Injury

2013· article· en· W1971110416 on OpenAlexaff
Miriam Santschi, Adrienne G. Randolph, Peter C. Rimensberger, Philippe Jouvet

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationARDSHypoxemiaPlateau pressureTidal volumeVentilation (architecture)Prone positionIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineAcute respiratory distressAnesthesiaRespiratory systemLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this survey was to determine North American and European pediatric intensivists' knowledge and stated practice in the management of children with acute respiratory distress syndrome with regard to mechanical ventilation settings; blood gas and SO2 targets; and use of adjunctive treatments at sites where actual practice had just been assessed. DESIGN AND SETTING: A survey using three case scenarios to assess mechanical ventilation strategies used in children with acute respiratory distress syndrome was sent out toward the end of data collection to all centers participating in the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Mechanical Ventilation study (59 PICUs in 12 countries). For each case scenario, intensivists were asked to report the optimal mechanical ventilation parameters; blood gas and SO2 acceptable targets; and threshold for considering high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, and other adjunctive treatments. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four pediatric intensivists, representing 47 centers from 11 countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Many pediatric intensivists reported using a tidal volume of 5-8 mL/kg (88-96%) and none reported using a tidal volume above 10 mL/kg. On average, the upper threshold of positive inspiratory pressure at which intensivists would consider another ventilation mode was 35 cm H2O. Permissive hypercapnia and mild hypoxemia (SO2 as low as 88%) was considered tolerable by many pediatric intensivists. Finally, a large proportion of pediatric intensivists reported they would use adjunctive treatments (nitric oxide, prone position, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, surfactant, steroids, β-agonists) if the patient's condition worsened. CONCLUSIONS: Although in theory, many pediatric intensivists agreed with adult recommendations to ventilate with lower tidal volumes and pressure limits, the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Mechanical Ventilation data revealed that over 25% of pediatric patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome at many of these practice sites were ventilated with tidal volumes above 10 mL/kg and that high positive inspiratory pressure levels (> 35 mm Hg) were often tolerated.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

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

Citations69
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207