Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate benefits and risks of open lung biopsy in children with respiratory failure. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: A 36-bed pediatric critical care unit in a tertiary care, university-based hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 31 patients with respiratory failure who underwent 33 open lung biopsies. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The charts of all children in the critical care unit with respiratory failure who underwent an open lung biopsy over a 10-yr period (1989-98) were reviewed. Of 33 open lung biopsies performed, 76% (25 of 33) led to a relevant change in medical management. Complications were seen in 45% of patients, predominantly attributable to airleak (33%) without affecting respiratory function. An infectious agent was detected by open lung biopsy in ten patients; bronchoalveolar lavage performed before open lung biopsy failed to isolate the infection in eight of ten patients. CONCLUSIONS: In children with undiagnosed or persisting respiratory failure, open lung biopsy is a useful diagnostic procedure that leads to significant changes in medical management and increases the diagnostic yield for infections. Despite the relatively high complication rate, open lung biopsy should be performed routinely in this group of patients.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".