MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133933468 · doi:10.1164/rccm.200812-1955oc

Exogenous Natural Surfactant for Treatment of Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2009· article· en· W2133933468 on OpenAlexaff
Jozef Kesecioğlu, Richard Beale, Thomas E. Stewart, George Findlay, Jean‐Jacques Rouby, Laurent Holzapfel, Peter Bruins, Edmee J. Steenken, Ole Kleist Jeppesen, Burkhard Lachmann

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSRespiratory distressHypoxemiaClinical endpointDiffuse alveolar damageAdverse effectAnesthesiaIntensive careRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineLungAcute respiratory distressIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Compositional changes in surfactant and/or decreased surfactant content of the lungs are common features in patients with acute respiratory failure. Instillation of exogenous surfactant into the lungs of neonates with respiratory distress syndrome or pediatric patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has resulted in improved survival. OBJECTIVES: We conducted this trial to determine whether the instillation of exogenous surfactant would improve the Day 28 outcome of adult patients with acute lung injury (ALI) or ARDS. METHODS: A total of 418 patients with ALI and ARDS were included in an international, multicenter, stratified, randomized, controlled, open, parallel-group study. We randomly assigned 418 patients to receive usual care either with or without instillation of exogenous natural porcine surfactant HL 10 as large boluses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoint was death rate before or on Day 28. Secondary endpoints were adverse event and death rate on day 180. The 28-day death rate in the usual care group was 24.5% compared with 28.8% in the HL 10 group. The estimated odds ratio for death at Day 28 in the usual care group versus the HL 10 group was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.48-1.18; P = 0.22). The most common adverse events related to HL 10 administration were temporary hypoxemia defined as oxygen saturation less than 88% (51.9% in HL 10 group vs. 25.2% in usual care) and hypotension defined as mean arterial blood pressure less than 60 mm Hg (34.1% in HL 10 group vs. 17.1% in usual care). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, instillation of a large bolus of exogenous natural porcine surfactant HL 10 into patients with acute lung injury and ARDS did not improve outcome and showed a trend toward increased mortality and adverse effects. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00742482).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.366 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations113
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207