High-frequency oscillatory ventilation for early acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) has been considered a potentially ideal mode of lung-protective ventilation. A recent meta-analysis suggested improved oxygenation and reduced mortality in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the use of outdated control strategies and small numbers of patients in many of the studies rendered these findings hypothesis-generating only. RECENT FINDINGS: During 2013, two large randomized controlled trials comparing HFOV with a conventional lung-protective ventilation were published - the Oscillation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Treated Early (OSCILLATE) and the Oscillation in ARDS (OSCAR) trials. These trials suggested no benefit or even harm with HFOV in adults with early moderate-to-severe ARDS. In this article, the major characteristics of these two studies and the possible reasons for failure to achieve the expected theoretical benefits are reviewed. Moreover, future directions with potential new technical advances and the use of new bedside monitoring techniques are addressed. SUMMARY: The OSCILLATE and OSCAR trials showed that the early application of HFOV in moderate-to-severe adult ARDS does not reduce mortality compared with conventional ventilation strategies. Future studies on HFOV will need to identify those patients who might benefit most from HFOV and to determine the best oscillator settings. Both goals require an improved capability of monitoring recruitment and overdistension, and oscillatory volumes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".