MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110862959 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201410-1832cp

Physiologic Responsiveness Should Guide Entry into Randomized Controlled Trials

2015· review· en· W2110862959 on OpenAlexafffund
Ewan C. Goligher, Brian P. Kavanagh, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Niall D. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most randomized trials in critical care report no mortality benefit; this may reflect competing pathogenic mechanisms, patient heterogeneity, or true ineffectiveness of interventions. We hypothesize that in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), randomizing only those patients who show a favorable physiological response to an intervention would help ensure that only those likely to benefit would be entered into the study. If true, this would decrease study "noise" and reduce required sample size, thereby increasing the chances of finding true-positive outcomes. It would also lessen the chances of exposing patients to treatments that are unlikely to help or that could cause harm. We present a reanalysis of randomized clinical trials of positive end-expiratory pressure in ARDS that support this hypothesis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0350.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207