Comparison of Clinical Criteria for the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome with Autopsy Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American-European Consensus Conference definition for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has never been validated. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical criteria for ARDS with autopsy findings. DESIGN: Independent comparison of autopsy findings with clinical characteristics retrospectively abstracted from medical records. SETTING: Tertiary medical-surgical intensive care unit. PARTICIPANTS: 382 patients who underwent clinical autopsy. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for clinical criteria were calculated in 3 cohorts by using diffuse alveolar damage at autopsy as the reference standard. The 3 cohorts were 1) all patients, 2) patients with any risk factor for ARDS, and 3) patients who were separated according to their pulmonary or extrapulmonary risk factors. RESULTS: 127 patients (33%) met the clinical criteria, and 112 (29%) had diffuse alveolar damage. In all patients, the sensitivity of the clinical definition was 75% (95% CI, 66% to 82%) and the specificity was 84% (CI, 79% to 88%). In 284 patients with risk factors, the sensitivity was 76% (CI, 67% to 83%) and the specificity was 75% (CI, 68% to 81%). Compared with patients with pulmonary risk factors, patients with extrapulmonary risk factors had significantly higher sensitivity (61% vs. 85%; P = 0.009) and the specificity did not statistically significantly differ (69% vs. 78%; P > 0.2). LIMITATIONS: Only patients who died and underwent autopsy could be included in this study, so these results may not apply to less severe cases of ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a series of autopsy patients, the accuracy of the American-European Consensus Conference definition of ARDS was only moderate. The definition was more accurate for patients with extrapulmonary risk factors than for patients with pulmonary risk factors.
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 | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".