MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014765477 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0b013e3181d904c0

Acute lung injury in children: Therapeutic practice and feasibility of international clinical trials*

2010· article· en· W2014765477 on OpenAlex
Miriam Santschi, Philippe Jouvet, F. Leclerc, France Gauvin, Christopher J. L. Newth, Christopher L. Carroll, Heidi R. Flori, Robert C. Tasker, Peter C. Rimensberger, Adrienne G. Randolph

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationIntensive careClinical trialVentilation (architecture)Inclusion and exclusion criteriaPositive end-expiratory pressureTidal volumeRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To describe mechanical ventilation strategies in acute lung injury and to estimate the number of eligible patients for clinical trials on mechanical ventilation management. In contrast to adult medicine, there are few clinical trials to guide mechanical ventilation management in children with acute lung injury. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study for six 24-hr periods from June to November 2007. SETTING: Fifty-nine pediatric intensive care units in 12 countries in North America and Europe. PATIENTS: We identified children meeting acute lung injury criteria and collected detailed information on illness severity, mechanical ventilatory support, and use of adjunctive therapies. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 3823 patients screened, 414 (10.8%) were diagnosed with acute lung injury by their treating physician, but only 165 (4.3%) patients met prestablished inclusion/exclusion criteria to this trial and, therefore, would have been eligible for a clinical trial. Of these, 124 (75.2%) received conventional mechanical ventilation, 27 (16.4%) received high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, and 14 (8.5%) received noninvasive mechanical ventilation. In the conventional mechanical ventilation group, 43.5% were ventilated in a pressure control mode with a mean tidal volume of 8.3 ± 3.3 mL/kg; and there was no clear relationship between positive end-expiratory pressure and Fio2 delivery in the conventional mechanical ventilation group. Use of adjunctive treatments, including nitric oxide, prone positioning, surfactant, hemofiltration, recruitment maneuvers, steroids, bronchodilators, and fluid restriction, was highly variable. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals inconsistent mechanical ventilation practice and use of adjunctive therapies in children with acute lung injury. Pediatric clinical trials assessing mechanical ventilation management are needed to generate evidence to optimize outcomes. We estimate that a large number of centers (∼60) are needed to conduct such trials; it is imperative, therefore, to bring about international collaboration.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.419 · 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