Reproducibility of Blind Protected Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Mechanically Ventilated Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blind protected bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) could be an interesting tool in the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intubated children, but its reproducibility has never been evaluated. This study evaluates the reproducibility, feasibility, and safety of blind protected BAL in mechanically ventilated children. Two blind protected BAL were done, at a 2-hour interval, in 30 patients. The reproducibility of microbiologic and cytologic results was studied. A total of 60 BALs was analyzed. Bacterial growth was present in 26 of 60 BAL (43%). Reproducibility for the presence of bacteria on quantitative cultures was excellent (concordance, 93%; kappa [kappa], 0.86). Concordance for the type of bacteria isolated was 86% and for the number of bacteria was 79%. Reproducibility for the presence of neutrophils containing bacteria was perfect (concordance, 100%; kappa, 1) although only a few BALs had a positive result (8/60). Blind protected BAL was feasible in all patients and all samples were considered adequate for analysis. Complications were mostly benign and transitory except in two cases: one pneumothorax and one significant increase in intracranial pressure. Overall, blind protected BAL is a reproducible test in mechanically ventilated children, is easily feasible, and is usually well tolerated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".