Oxygenation Response to Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Predicts Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Secondary Analysis of the LOVS and ExPress Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Previous trials of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) failed to demonstrate mortality benefit, possibly because of differences in lung recruitability among patients with ARDS. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the physiological response to increased PEEP is associated with mortality. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of the Lung Open Ventilation Study (LOVS, n = 983), we examined the relationship between the initial response to changes in PEEP after randomization and mortality. We sought to corroborate our findings using data from a different trial of higher PEEP (ExPress, n = 749). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The oxygenation response (change in ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen: P/F) after the initial change in PEEP after randomization varied widely (median, 9.5 mm Hg; interquartile range, -16 to 47) and was only weakly related to baseline P/F or the magnitude of PEEP change. Among patients in whom PEEP was increased after randomization, an increase in P/F was associated with reduced mortality (multivariable logistic regression; adjusted odds ratio, 0.80 [95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.89] per 25-mm Hg increase in P/F), particularly in patients with severe disease (baseline P/F [less-than-or-equal-to] 150 mm Hg). Changes in compliance and dead space were not associated with mortality. These findings were confirmed by a similar analysis of data from the ExPress trial. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ARDS who respond to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation have a lower risk of death. The oxygenation response to PEEP might be used to predict whether patients will benefit from higher versus lower PEEP.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".