MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155832794 · doi:10.1183/09059180.00012414

Recent advances in mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

2015· review· en· W2155832794 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

VenueEuropean Respiratory Review · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSIntensive care medicineMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)Acute respiratory distressRespiratory distressLungAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterised by different degrees of severity and different stages. Understanding these differences can help to better adapt the ventilatory settings to protect the lung from ventilator-induced lung injury by reducing hyperinflation or keeping the lung open when it is possible. The same therapies may be useful and beneficial in certain forms of ARDS, and risky or harmful at other stages: this includes high positive end-expiratory pressure, allowance of spontaneous breathing activity or use of noninvasive ventilation. The severity of the disease is the primary indicator to individualise treatment. Monitoring tools such as oesophageal pressure or lung volume measurements may also help to set the ventilator. At an earlier stage, an adequate lung protective strategy may also help to prevent the development of ARDS.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.283 · 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