MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132232741 · doi:10.1177/0115426504019006597

Aspiration and the Risk of Ventilator‐Associated Pneumonia

2004· article· en· W2132232741 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

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentilator-associated pneumoniaIntensive care medicinePneumoniaEtiologyIntensive care unitAspiration pneumoniaPulmonary aspirationIntensive careInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a major concern in the intensive care unit. It is estimated that the risk of developing VAP may be as high as 1% per ventilated day, and the attributable mortality approaches 50% in some series. A growing body of evidence implicates the role of microaspiration of contaminated oropharyngeal and perhaps gastroesophageal secretions into the airways as an integral step in the pathogenesis of VAP. In patients who have been intubated and mechanically ventilated for >72 hours, the majority of VAP is caused by enteric gram-negative organisms, presumably of gastrointestinal origin. As a result, strategies designed to minimize the risk of these contaminated secretions into the normally sterile airways are of paramount importance in terms of VAP prevention. This review highlights the important etiological role of the gut in the development of VAP and also discusses the evidence behind interventions that may modulate the risk of both aspiration and subsequent VAP.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.375 · 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