MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115353438 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-51

Keratinocyte growth factor in acute lung injury to reduce pulmonary dysfunction – a randomised placebo-controlled trial (KARE): study protocol

2013· article· en· W2115353438 on OpenAlexfundno aff
L. J. M. Cross, Cecilia O’Kane, Clíona McDowell, Michael A. Matthay, Daniel F. McAuley

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSwedish Orphan BiovitrumQueen's UniversityPublic Health Agency
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboClinical trialDiscontinuationClinical endpointInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute lung injury is a common, devastating clinical syndrome associated with substantial mortality and morbidity with currently no proven therapeutic interventional strategy to improve patient outcomes. The objectives of this study are to test the potential therapeutic effects of keratinocyte growth factor for patients with acute lung injury on oxygenation and biological indicators of acute inflammation, lung epithelial and endothelial function, protease:antiprotease balance, and lung extracellular matrix degradation and turnover. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a prospective, randomised, double-blind, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, phase 2, multicentre trial. Randomisation will be stratified by presence of severe sepsis requiring vasopressors. Patients in an ICU fulfilling the American-European Consensus Conference Definition of acute lung injury will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive an intravenous bolus of either keratinocyte growth factor (palifermin, 60 μg/kg) or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) daily for a maximum of 6 days. The primary endpoint of this clinical study is to evaluate the efficacy of palifermin to improve the oxygenation index at day 7 or the last available oxygenation index prior to patient discontinuation from the study.A formal statistical analysis plan has been constructed. Analyses will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. A single analysis is planned at the end of the trial. P = 0.05 will be considered statistically significant and all tests will be two-sided. For continuously distributed outcomes, differences between groups will be tested using independent-sample t tests, analysis of variance and analysis of covariance with transformation of variables to normality or nonparametric equivalents. The trial will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (Consort 2010 guidelines). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN95690673.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.010

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207