MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981975315 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0b013e32833500bc

Ventilatory support for acute respiratory failure: new and ongoing pathophysiological, diagnostic and therapeutic developments

2009· review· en· W1981975315 on OpenAlexaff
Lorenzo Del Sorbo, Arthur S. Slutsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineAcute respiratory distressAcute respiratory failureExtracorporealRespiratory failurePathophysiologyMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)LungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute respiratory failure and its most severe form, the acute respiratory distress syndrome, are relatively common in the ICU setting and have a high morbidity and mortality. This article will discuss ongoing research in this area, with a focus on relatively novel approaches in terms of pathophysiology, diagnosis and therapeutic advancements. RECENT FINDINGS: Several novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools, such as electrical impedance tomography, high frequency oscillatory ventilation, minimally invasive extracorporeal CO2 removal devices and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, have recently been studied to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury. A brief review of these studies is presented in this article. SUMMARY: It is increasingly evident that only integration of physiological, clinical and technological approaches will lead to improvement in the outcome of patients with acute respiratory failure.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207