Prone positioning for acute respiratory failure improved short term oxygenation but not survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gattinoni L, Tognoni G, Pesenti A , et al, for the Prone-Supine Study Group. Effect of prone positioning on the survival of patients with acute respiratory failure. N Engl J Med2001 Aug 23; 345 : 568 –73 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Does prone positioning for ≥ 6 hours each day for 10 days improve survival of patients with acute lung injury or the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)? Randomised (allocation concealed), unblinded, controlled trial with 6 months of follow up. 28 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy and 2 in Switzerland. 304 patients (mean age 58 y, 68% men) who were receiving mechanical ventilation and met the following modified criteria for acute lung injury or ARDS: ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤ 200 with a positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≥ 5 cm of water, or a PaO2:FiO2 ratio ≤ 300 with a PEEP ≥ 10 cm water; radiographic evidence of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.aulast%253DGattinoni%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D345%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D568%26rft.epage%253D573%26rft.atitle%253DEffect%2Bof%2BProne%2BPositioning%2Bon%2Bthe%2BSurvival%2Bof%2BPatients%2Bwith%2BAcute%2BRespiratory%2BFailure%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa010043%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11529210%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa010043&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11529210&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F2%2F52.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170562900003&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".