Evaluation of the oxygenation index in adult respiratory failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The oxygenation index (mean airway pressure × FIO2 divided by PaO2) was originally devised to measure severity of illness and predict outcome in neonatal respiratory failure. We evaluated the discrimination of a modified oxygenation index (modified with age) for predicting 28-day mortality in adults with respiratory failure (adult respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]) using the ALVEOLI section of the ARDSNet database and validated the results in the full ARDSNet database. METHODS: We compared age-adjusted oxygenation index (AOI) on ventilator Days 1 to 4 with 28-day mortality. RESULTS: AOI correlated positively with mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.70-0.74, for ARDS Days 1-4). Following initial development, AOI related to mortality was validated in two other ARDSNet databases producing similar results (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.70-0.78). CONCLUSION: The observed sensitivity and specificity analysis demonstrated that AOI is equivalent to or better than other mortality prediction systems used for ARDS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".