MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975983829 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181653584

Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure near the end of life*

2008· article· en· W1975983829 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tasnim Sinuff, Sean Keenan, Karen E. A. Burns, Neill K. J. Adhikari, Graeme Rocker, Sangeeta Mehta, Robert M. Kacmarek, Kevin W. Eva, Nicholas S. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai Hospital
FundersAmerican Thoracic Society
KeywordsMedicinePulmonologistsDo not resuscitateNoninvasive ventilationIntubationAcute respiratory failureIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineRespiratory failureCOPDMechanical ventilationInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: For patients with acute respiratory failure who have declined intubation and resuscitation or have chosen comfort measures only, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may help them achieve important health or personal goals, or merely prolong the dying process. OBJECTIVE: To determine clinicians' attitudes to and stated use of NIV for these patients. METHODS: We developed an instrument to assess the attitudes of intensivists, pulmonologists, and respiratory therapists (RTs) toward the use of NIV for patients with acute respiratory failure near or at the end of life. After assessing its psychometric properties, we mailed the survey to these clinicians at 18 Canadian and two U.S. hospitals. We analyzed factors associated with stated use of NIV for do-not-resuscitate and comfort-measures-only patients. RESULTS: Overall, 104 of 183 (57%) physicians and 290 of 473 (61%) RTs participated. Two thirds of physicians include NIV during life support discussions with do-not-resuscitate patients at least sometimes, and 87% of RTs stated that NIV should be included in such discussions. For patients choosing comfort measures only, almost half of physicians reported including NIV as an option in their discussions at least sometimes, while fewer than half of RTs stated that these discussions should be conducted. Most (>80%) physicians use NIV and most (>80%) RTs are asked to initiate NIV for do-not-resuscitate patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Fewer clinicians report using NIV for do-not-resuscitate patients with underlying malignancy (59% of physicians, 69% of RTs) or for patients choosing comfort measures only (40% of physicians, 51% of RTs; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with do-not-resuscitate orders, many physicians use NIV, and many RTs are asked to initiate NIV, most often to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Further study is needed on the goals of NIV near the end of life, whether these goals are understood by all stakeholders, and how well they are achieved in practice.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations66
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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