MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1974404062 · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.218

Higher vs Lower Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients With Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2010· review· en· W1974404062 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthias Briel, Maureen O. Meade, Alain Mercat, Roy G. Brower, Daniel Talmor, Stephen D. Walter, Arthur S. Slutsky, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Qi Zhou, Laurent Brochard, Jean-Christophe M. Richard, François Lamontagne, Neera Bhatnagar, Thomas E. Stewart, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineARDSFraction of inspired oxygenConfidence intervalPositive end-expiratory pressureMechanical ventilationTidal volumeRelative riskInternal medicineSubgroup analysisRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaLungRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,468
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→