Wean Earlier and Automatically with New Technology (the WEAN Study). A Multicenter, Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Automated weaning has not been compared with a paper-based weaning protocol in North America. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a pilot randomized trial comparing automated weaning with protocolized weaning in critically ill adults to evaluate clinician compliance and acceptance of the weaning and sedation protocols, recruitment, and impact on outcomes. METHODS: From August 2007 to October 2009, we enrolled critically ill adults requiring more than 24 hours of mechanical ventilation and at least partial reversal of the condition precipitating respiratory failure at nine Canadian intensive care units. We randomized patients who tolerated at least 30 minutes of pressure support and either failed or were not yet ready to undergo a spontaneous breathing trial to automated or protocolized weaning. Both groups used pressure support, included spontaneous breathing trials, used a common positive end-expiratory pressure-FI(O(2)) chart, sedation protocol, and criteria for extubation, reintubation, and noninvasive ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We recruited 92 patients (49 automated, 43 protocolized) over 26 months. Adherence to assigned weaning protocols and extreme sedation scale scores fell within prespecified thresholds. Combined physician-respiratory therapist and nurse acceptance scores of the study weaning and sedation protocols, respectively, were not significantly different. Automated weaning patients had significantly shorter median times to first successful spontaneous breathing trial (1.0 vs. 4.0 d; P < 0.0001), extubation (3.0 vs. 4.0 d; P = 0.02), and successful extubation (4.0 vs. 5.0 d; P = 0.01), and underwent fewer tracheostomies and episodes of protracted ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a standardized protocol, automated weaning was associated with promising outcomes that warrant further investigation. Minor protocol modifications may increase compliance, facilitate recruitment, and enhance feasibility. Clinical trial registered with www.controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN43760151).
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 | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".