Pharmacological therapies for acute respiratory distress syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite recent advances in the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by using protective ventilator strategies, the mortality rate of ARDS remains high. The complexity of the pathogenesis and the heterogeneity of coexisting diseases in patients with ARDS require critical care physicians and researchers to search for multiple therapeutic approaches in order to further improve patient outcome. This review article therefore focuses on the recent studies in the field of pharmacological intervention in ARDS. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of approaches for pharmacological intervention have been evaluated in patients with ARDS, but most of them failed to reduce mortality or improve outcomes despite some promising observations seen in preclinical studies. Prior methods such as nitric oxide inhalation, neuromuscular blocking agents and corticosteroids may still have a place in the treatment, while novel therapeutic approaches including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, statins and stem cells are currently under investigation. SUMMARY: Overall, there is no proven pharmacological therapy in ARDS, but some pharmacological interventions were associated with beneficial effects in certain subgroups of patients depending on the cause, underlying diseases, the concurrent supportive therapies and timing. Further clinical trials are warranted to assess multiple outcome measurement of the promising pharmacological interventions in selected patients with ARDS.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".