Effect of Recombinant Surfactant Protein C–Based Surfactant on the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that exogenous surfactant may be of value in the treatment of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and two phase 2 clinical trials have shown a trend toward benefit. We conducted two phase 3 studies of a protein-containing surfactant in adults with ARDS. METHODS: In two multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials involving 448 patients with ARDS from various causes, we compared standard therapy alone with standard therapy plus up to four intratracheal doses of a recombinant surfactant protein C-based surfactant given within a period of 24 hours. RESULTS: The overall survival rate was 66 percent 28 days after treatment, and the median number of ventilator-free days was 0 (68 percent range, 0 to 26); there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation. Patients receiving surfactant had a significantly greater improvement in blood oxygenation during the initial 24 hours of treatment than patients receiving standard therapy, according to both univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The use of exogenous surfactant in a heterogeneous population of patients with ARDS did not improve survival. Patients who received surfactant had a greater improvement in gas exchange during the 24-hour treatment period than patients who received standard therapy alone, suggesting the potential benefit of a longer treatment course.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".