Inhaled Nitric Oxide for Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure in Children and Adults: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials examining inhaled nitric oxide (INO) for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute lung injury in children and adults. Qualitative assessments of identified trials were made, and metaanalyses were performed according to Cochrane methodology. Five randomized controlled trials (n = 535) met entry criteria. One study demonstrated significant improvement in oxygenation in the first 4 days of treatment, with no difference after this. There was no difference in ventilator-free days between treatment and placebo groups, and no specific dose of INO was more advantageous than any other. INO had no effect on mortality in trials without crossover of treatment failures to open-label INO (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.44). Other clinical indicators of effectiveness, such as duration of hospital and intensive care stay, were inconsistently reported. Lack of data prevented assessment of all outcomes. If further trials assessing INO in acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute lung injury are to proceed, they should be stratified for primary etiology, incorporate other modalities that may affect outcome, and evaluate clinically relevant outcomes before any benefit of INO can be excluded.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".