MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132614601 · doi:10.1007/s00134-008-1380-5

Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine, 2008: II. Experimental, acute respiratory failure and ARDS, mechanical ventilation and endotracheal intubation

2009· review· en· W2132614601 on OpenAlexaff
Massimo Antonelli, Élie Azoulay, Marc J. M. Bonten, Jean Chastre, Giuseppe Citerio, Giorgio Conti, Daniel De Backer, F Lemaire, Herwig Gerlach, Johan Groeneveld, Göran Hedenstierna, Duncan Macrae, Jordi Mancebo, Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore, Alexandre Mebazaa, Philipp Metnitz, Jérôme Pugin, Jan Wernerman, Haibo Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSPain medicineAnesthesiologyEndotracheal intubationMechanical ventilationIntensive care medicineIntubationAcute respiratory failureIntensive careVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaNoninvasive ventilationEmergency medicineLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Also this year ICM published a number of interesting experimental articles, in large part focussed on mechanical ventilation, ARDS and sepsis. Mechanical ventilationVentilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is associated with inadequate inflammatory responses that lead to distal organ dysfunction.A variety of risk factors have been suggested to be involved in the pathogenesis of VILI in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and it is noted that the mortality rate decreased in some younger but not other patients with ARDS.To test the hypothesis that aging increases the susceptibility to VILI and organ dysfunction, Dr. Esteban's group [1] conducted a study to mechanically ventilate young and old rats for an hour with a low or high tidal volume.They demonstrated that the high volume ventilatory strategy induced significantly greater systemic hypotension, cytokine production, distal organ dysfunction, and depressed vascular responses to catecholamines in the older than in the younger rats.The authors suggested that elderly subjects appear to be more prone to develop VILI and distal organ dysfunction compared to younger subjects.This interesting article was accompanied by an Editorial [2] to highlight the importance of the observation.Furthermore, the same group of investigators [3] demonstrated in the younger rats that the inflammatory responses and distal organ dysfunction induced by a short period (1 h) of high volume mechanical ventilation were reversible by 24-72 h in the surviving animals.This study suggests an important impact of the length of mechanical ventilation on the recovery of organ function, and multiple time points of a similar study are warranted.A number of studies have examined a variety of therapeutic approaches by improving ventilatory management or by using pharmacological intervention to reduce VILI in animal models.examined the effects of high-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV), and compared it with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) and low volume ventilation on acute lung injury following gastric juice aspiration in rabbits.The HFPV was administered with a pneumatically powered volumetric diffusive respirator, which combines potential advantages of both high-frequency and convective ventilation.The investigators suggested that HFPV provided similar lung protective effects as did by HFOV and low volume ventilation, thus introduced an interesting therapeutic approach to attenuate VILI.It is noteworthy to mention that the neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has been shown to be protective in some experimental models of lung injury.NAVA utilizes

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.009

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207