Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury and Recommendations for Mechanical Ventilation of Patients with ARDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical ventilation is life sustaining and is the standard therapy for acute respiratory failure. The 16th century anatomist Vesalius is often credited for the earliest account of positive-pressure ventilation. In his work De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human Body), he described how an animal could be resuscitated by blowing into a reed inserted into a hole in its trachea. Although positive pressure ventilation using bellows was first used for drowning victims in the 1700s, there were soon concerns that such therapy could in fact be harmful to the lungs. In 1827, Leroy d'Etoille condemned bellows ventilation after discovering that it could lead to emphysema and tension pneumothoraces. Subsequently, positive pressure ventilation would be virtually abandoned for over 100 years. Despite this early concern about the potential for harm from mechanical ventilation, it is only in the last one to two decades that research into so-called ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) has blossomed. Indeed, although initial studies have focused on which ventilatory parameters are associated with the most (or least) harm, there has been an explosion of research in the last 5 years attempting to delineate the basic cellular mechanisms by which mechanical ventilation injures the lung. Recently, there has been exciting evidence to suggest that lung injury induced by mechanical ventilation may have important systemic consequences, including multi-organ dysfunction. Lastly and most importantly, there is accumulating data from clinical trials in humans that ventilatory strategies designed to avoid VILI can in fact save lives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".