MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992635343 · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e318263bccc

Home Noninvasive Ventilation

2012· review· en· W1992635343 on OpenAlexaff
Karen A. Brown, Gianluca Bertolizio, Marisa Leone, Steven Dain, David S. Warner

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWestern UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionNoninvasive ventilationIntensive care medicineStandardizationPerioperativeInternational standardizationMedical emergencyMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of chronic respiratory failure with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is standard pediatric practice, and NIV systems are commonly used in the home setting. Although practice guidelines on the perioperative management of children supported with home NIV systems have yet to be published, increasingly these patients are referred for consultation regarding perioperative management. Just as knowledge of pharmacology underlies the safe prescription of medication, so too knowledge of biomedical design is necessary for the safe prescription of NIV therapy. The medical device design requirements developed by the Organization for International Standardization provide a framework to rationalize the safe prescription of NIV for hospitalized patients supported at home with NIV systems. This review article provides an overview of the indications for home NIV therapy, an overview of the medical devices currently available to deliver it, and a specific discussion of the management conundrums confronting anesthesiologists.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207