Have changes in ventilation practice improved outcome in children with acute lung injury?*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the changes that have occurred in mechanical ventilation in children with acute lung injury in our institution over the last 10-15 yrs and to examine the impact of these changes, in particular of the delivered tidal volume on mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: University-affiliated children's hospital. PATIENTS: The management of mechanical ventilation between 1988 and 1992 (past group, n = 79) was compared with the management between 2000 and 2004 (recent group, n = 85). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The past group patients were ventilated with a significantly higher mean tidal volume (10.2 +/- 1.7 vs. 8.1 +/- 1.4 mL.kg actual body weight, p < .001), lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (6.1 +/- 2.7 vs. 7.1 +/- 2.4 cm H2O, p = .007), and higher mean peak inspiratory pressure (31.5 +/- 7.3 vs. 27.8 +/- 4.2 cm H2O, p < .001) than the recent group patients. The recent group had a lower mortality (21% vs. 35%, p = .04) and a greater number of ventilator-free days (16.0 +/- 9.0 vs. 12.6 +/- 9.9 days, p = .03) than the past group. A higher tidal volume was independently associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.59; 95% confidence interval 1.20, 2.10, p < .001) and reduction in ventilation-free days (95% confidence interval -1.24, -0.77, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The changes in the clinical practice of mechanical ventilation in children in our institution reflect those reported for adults. In our experience, mortality among children with acute lung injury was reduced by 40%, and tidal volume was independently associated with reduced mortality and an increase in ventilation-free days.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".