NIPPV: Prevalence, Approach and Barriers to Use at Canadian ALS Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Canadian amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) centres with respect to: 1) the prevalence of Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and invasive mechanical ventilation via tracheostomy (TV) utilization, 2) the approach to NIPPV use, focusing upon the currently employed initiation criteria and 3) the barriers influencing NIPPV administration. METHODS: A descriptive survey research design aimed to obtain quantitative data and open-ended responses from an active physician at each of the 15 multidisciplinary Canadian ALS centres. RESULTS: The principal findings of this study were: 1) NIPPV and TV are used in 18.3% and 1.5% of patients at Canadian ALS centres, respectively, 2) symptoms of respiratory insufficiency, namely orthopnea (clinical significance rated at 9.00/10 +/- 1.48), dyspnea (8.27 +/- 1.95) and morning headache (7.55 +/- 1.21) are the most significant indicators for NIPPV initiation, 3) the primary barriers to NIPPV utilization are patient intolerance (70% of centres) and inaccessibility of respirologists and ventilation technologists (50% of centres). CONCLUSIONS: Variability in NIPPV use has an impact upon the management of Canadian ALS patients. The establishment of more definitive NIPPV initiation criteria, emphasizing respiratory symptoms, and the attenuation of barriers to NIPPV use should be targeted so as to ensure optimal care for all ALS patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".