MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004917927 · doi:10.1164/rccm.200508-1196oc

Partial Liquid Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2005· article· en· W2004917927 on OpenAlexaff
Robert M. Kacmarek, Herbert Wiedemann, Philip T. Lavin, Mark K. Wedel, Ahmet Tütüncü, Arthur S. Slutsky

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsARDSMedicineAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)Respiratory distressOxygenationAcute respiratory distressLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Despite recent clinical trials demonstrating improved outcome in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality remains high. Partial liquid ventilation (PLV) using perfluorocarbons has been shown to improve oxygenation and decrease lung injury in various animal models. OBJECTIVE: To determine if PLV would have an impact on outcome in patients with ARDS. METHODS: Patients with ARDS were randomized to (1) conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV; n=107), (2) "low-dose" perfluorocarbon (10 ml/kg; n=99), and (3) "high-dose" perfluorocarbon (20 ml/kg; n=105). Patients in all three groups were ventilated using volume ventilation, Vt <or= 10 ml/kg predicted body weight, rate <or= 25/min, inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio <or= 1:1, Fi(O(2)) >or= 0.5, and positive end-expiratory pressure >or= 13 cm H(2)O. RESULTS: The 28-d mortality in the CMV group was 15%, versus 26.3% in the low-dose (p=0.06) and 19.1% in the high-dose (p=0.39) PLV groups. There were more ventilator-free days in the CMV group (13.0+/-9.3) compared with both the low-dose (7.4+/-8.5; p<0.001) and high-dose (9.9+/-9.1; p=0.043) groups. There were more pneumothoraces, hypoxic episodes, and hypotensive episodes in the PLV patients. CONCLUSIONS: PLV at both high and low doses did not improve outcome in ARDS compared with CMV and cannot be recommended for patients with ARDS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations165
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207