MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115626471 · doi:10.1164/rccm.2108052

High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Adults

2002· article· en· W2115626471 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentilation (architecture)Mean airway pressureHigh-frequency ventilationAnesthesiaRespiratory distressOxygenationMechanical ventilationFraction of inspired oxygenContinuous positive airway pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observational studies of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in adults with the acute respiratory distress syndrome have demonstrated improvements in oxygenation. We designed a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing the safety and effectiveness of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation with conventional ventilation in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome; 148 adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (Pa(O2)/fraction of inspired oxygen <or= 200 mm Hg on 10 or more cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure) were randomized to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (n = 75) or conventional ventilation (n = 73). Applied mean airway pressure was significantly higher in the high-frequency oscillation group compared with the conventional ventilation group throughout the first 72 hours (p = 0.0001). The high-frequency oscillation group showed early (less than 16 hours) improvement in Pa(O2)/fraction of inspired oxygen compared with the conventional ventilation group (p = 0.008); however, this difference did not persist beyond 24 hours. Oxygenation index decreased similarly over the first 72 hours in both groups. Thirty-day mortality was 37% in the high-frequency oscillation group and was 52% in the conventional ventilation group (p = 0.102). The percentage of patients alive without mechanical ventilation at Day 30 was 36% and 31% in the high-frequency oscillation and conventional ventilation groups, respectively (p = 0.686). There were no significant differences in hemodynamic variables, oxygenation failure, ventilation failure, barotraumas, or mucus plugging between treatment groups. We conclude that high-frequency oscillation is a safe and effective mode of ventilation for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.288 · 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