Management and outcome of mechanically ventilated neurologic patients*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare characteristics, ventilatory practices, and associated outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients with different types of brain injury and between neurologic and nonneurologic patients. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, and multicenter study on mechanical ventilation. SETTING: Three hundred forty-nine intensive care units from 23 countries. PATIENTS: We included 552 mechanically ventilated neurologic patients (362 patients with stroke and 190 patients with brain trauma). For comparison we used a control group of 4,030 mixed patients who were ventilated for nonneurologic reasons. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We collected demographics, ventilatory settings, organ failures, and complications arising during ventilation and outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with intensive care unit mortality as the dependent variable. At admission, a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤8 was observed in 68% of the stroke, 77% of the brain trauma, and 29% of the nonneurologic patients. Modes of ventilation and use of a lung-protective strategy within the first week of mechanical ventilation were similar between groups. In comparison with nonneurologic patients, patients with neurologic disease developed fewer complications over the course of mechanical ventilation with the exception of a higher rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the brain trauma cohort. Neurologic patients showed higher rates of tracheotomy and longer duration of mechanical ventilation. Mortality in the intensive care unit was significantly (p < .001) higher in patients with stroke (45%) than in brain trauma (29%) and nonneurologic disease (30%). Factors associated with mortality were: stroke (in comparison to brain trauma), Glasgow Coma Scale score on day 1, and severity at admission in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, one of every five mechanically ventilated patients received this therapy as a result of a neurologic disease. This cohort of patients showed a higher mortality rate than nonneurologic patients despite a lower incidence of extracerebral organ dysfunction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".