Characteristics and Outcomes of Ventilated Patients According to Time to Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: A new classification of patients based on the duration of liberation of mechanical ventilation has been proposed. OBJECTIVES: To analyze outcomes based on the new weaning classification in a cohort of mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: Secondary analysis included 2,714 patients who were weaned and underwent scheduled extubation from a cohort of 4,968 adult patients mechanically ventilated for more than 12 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were classified according to a new weaning classification: 1,502 patients (55%) as simple weaning,1,058 patients (39%) as difficult weaning, and 154 (6%) as prolonged weaning.Variables associated with prolonged weaning(.7d)were: severity at admission (odds ratio [OR] per unit of Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001–1.02), duration of mechanical ventilation before first attempt of weaning (OR per day, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06–1.13), chronic pulmonary disease other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR,13.23; 95% CI, 3.44–51.05), pneumonia as the reason to start mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.07–3.08), and level of positive end-expiratory pressure applied before weaning (OR per unit,1.09; 95% CI, 1.04–1.14). The prolonged weaning group had a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of reintubation (P ¼ 0.08),tracheostomy (P ¼ 0.15), and significantly longer length of stay and higher mortality in the intensive care unit (OR for death, 1.97;95%CI, 1.17–3.31). The adjusted probability of death remained constant until Day 7, at which point it increased to 12.1%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".