Surfactant therapy in adults with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Several phase II and phase III studies have been performed to investigate safety, efficacy and the improvement of survival due to exogenous surfactant instillation in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. In this review we will discuss the most recent of these studies, paying particular attention to differences in the composition of the exogenous surfactant used, the diverse modes of delivery and dose of therapy and the influence of mechanical ventilation. RECENT FINDINGS: Several phase II studies performed on patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome and a phase III study performed on a pediatric population have shown beneficial effects of surfactant on oxygenation and survival. No effect of exogenous surfactant has been shown on survival in phase III studies in adult patients. SUMMARY: The changes in the surfactant system of patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome form the rationale for the instillation of exogenous surfactant. There is enough evidence to use surfactant instillation for pediatric patients with acute lung injury. Due to the results of the randomized controlled trials performed so far, however, exogenous surfactant is not recommended for routine use in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. In the future, other surfactants with different compositions may show beneficial effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".