The role of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is increasingly used in adults with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), who remain hypoxemic during conventional mechanical ventilation. In this review, we will summarize the trials evaluating HFOV in adults with ARDS and discuss issues relevant to the clinician regarding the use of HFOV. RECENT FINDINGS: Several observational and randomized trials support the safety of HFOV and improvements in oxygenation in adult patients with severe ARDS, who remain hypoxemic during conventional mechanical ventilation. SUMMARY: HFOV theoretically meets the goals of lung-protective ventilation. On the basis of the current evidence, HFOV is associated with improvements in oxygenation in severe, adult ARDS. However, whether HFOV influences mortality, length of ICU stay, ventilator-free days, quality-of-life factors and is cost-effective remains to be determined. Large, prospective, randomized controlled trials such as the ongoing OSCAR and OSCILLATE trials will help further define the role of HFOV in adult 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".