Partial Ventilatory Support Modalities in Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The efficacy of partial ventilatory support modes that allow spontaneous breathing in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear. The objective of this scoping review was to assess the effects of partial ventilatory support on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and both hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay (LOS) for patients with ALI and ARDS; the secondary objective was to describe physiologic effects on hemodynamics, respiratory system and other organ function. METHODS: MEDLINE (1966-2009), Cochrane, and EmBase (1980-2009) databases were searched using common ventilator modes as keywords and reference lists from retrieved manuscripts hand searched for additional studies. Two researchers independently reviewed and graded the studies using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system. Studies in adult ALI/ARDS patients were included for primary objectives and pre-clinical studies for supporting evidence. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, in addition to six prospective cohort studies, one retrospective cohort study, one case control study, 41 clinical physiologic studies and 28 pre-clinical studies. No study was powered to assess mortality, one RCT showed shorter ICU length of stay, and the other demonstrated more ventilator free days. Beneficial effects of preserved spontaneous breathing were mainly physiological effects demonstrated as improvement of gas exchange, hemodynamics and non-pulmonary organ perfusion and function. CONCLUSIONS: The use of partial ventilatory support modalities is often feasible in patients with ALI/ARDS, and may be associated with short-term physiological benefits without appreciable impact on clinically important outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".