MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137443377 · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.5552

Does This Patient Have an Exudative Pleural Effusion?

2014· review· en· W2137443377 on OpenAlex
M. Elizabeth Wilcox, Christopher Chong, Matthew B. Stanbrook, Andrea C. Tricco, Camilla Wong, Sharon E. Straus

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

VenueJAMA · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalLakeridge HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThoracentesisMedicinePleural effusionLactate dehydrogenaseInternal medicinePneumothoraxTransudatePleural fluidGastroenterologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Thoracentesis is performed to identify the cause of a pleural effusion. Although generally safe, thoracentesis may be complicated by transient hypoxemia, bleeding, patient discomfort, reexpansion pulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. OBJECTIVE: To identify the best means for differentiating between transudative and exudative effusions and also to identify thoracentesis techniques for minimizing the risk of complications by performing a systematic review the evidence. DATA SOURCES: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to February 2014 to identify relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized and observational studies of adult patients undergoing thoracentesis that examined diagnostic tests for differentiating exudates from transudates and evaluated thoracentesis techniques associated with a successful procedure with minimal complications. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators independently appraised study quality and extracted data from studies of laboratory diagnosis of pleural effusion for calculation of likelihood ratios (LRs; n = 48 studies) and factors affecting adverse event rates (n = 37 studies). RESULTS: The diagnosis of an exudate was most accurate if cholesterol in the pleural fluid was greater than 55 mg/dL (LR range, 7.1-250), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was greater than 200 U/L (LR, 18; 95% CI, 6.8-46), or the ratio of pleural fluid cholesterol to serum cholesterol was greater than 0.3 (LR, 14; 95% CI, 5.5-38). A diagnosis of exudate was less likely when all Light's criteria (a ratio of pleural fluid protein to serum protein >0.5, a ratio of pleural fluid LDH to serum LDH >0.6, or pleural fluid LDH >two-thirds the upper limit of normal for serum LDH) were absent (LR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.11). The most common complication of thoracentesis was pneumothorax, which occurred in 6.0% of cases (95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%). Chest tube placement was required in 2.0% of procedures (95% CI, 0.99%-2.9%) in which a patient was determined to have radiographic evidence of a pneumothorax. With ultrasound, a radiologist's marking the needle insertion site was not associated with decreased pneumothorax events (skin marking vs no skin marking odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.08-1.7). Use of ultrasound by any experienced practitioner also was not associated with decreased pneumothorax events (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.06-5.3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Light's criteria, cholesterol and pleural fluid LDH levels, and the pleural fluid cholesterol-to-serum ratio are the most accurate diagnostic indicators for pleural exudates. Ultrasound skin marking by a radiologist or ultrasound-guided thoracentesis were not associated with a decrease in pneumothorax events.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.297 · 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