Assessing the quality of studies supporting genetic susceptibility and outcomes of ARDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe inflammatory disease manifested as a result of pulmonary and systemic responses to several insults. It is now well accepted that genetic variation influences these responses. However, little is known about the genes that are responsible for patient susceptibility and outcome of ARDS. Methodological flaws are still abundant among genetic association studies with ARDS and here, we aimed to highlight the quality criteria where the standards have not been reached, to expose the associated genes to facilitate replication attempts, and to provide quick-reference guidance for future studies. We conducted a PubMed search from January 2008 to September 2012 for original articles. Studies were considered if a statistically significant association was declared with either susceptibility or outcomes of all-cause ARDS. Fourteen criteria were used for evaluation and results were compared to those from a previous quality assessment report. Significant improvements affecting study design and statistical analysis were detected. However, major issues such as adjustments for the underlying population stratification and replication studies remain poorly addressed.
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 | 0.475 | 0.747 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".