North American Summit on Aspiration in the Critically Ill Patient: Consensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspiration is the leading cause of pneumonia in the intensive care unit and the most serious complication of enteral tube feeding (ETF). Although aspiration is common, the clinical consequences are variable because of differences in nature of the aspirated material and individual host responses. A number of defense mechanisms normally present in the upper aerodigestive system that protect against aspiration become compromised by clinical events that occur frequently in the critical care setting, subjecting the patient to increased risk. The true incidence of aspiration has been difficult to determine in the past because of vague definitions, poor assessment monitors, and varying levels of clinical recognition. Standardization of terminology is an important step in helping to define the problem, design appropriate research studies, and develop strategies to reduce risk. Traditional clinical monitors of glucose oxidase strips and blue food coloring (BFC) should no longer be used. A modified approach to use of gastric residual volumes and identification of clinical factors that predispose to aspiration allow for risk stratification and an algorhythm approach to the management of the critically ill patient on ETF. Although the patient with confirmed aspiration should be monitored for clinical consequences and receive supportive pulmonary care, ETF may be continued when accompanied by appropriate steps to reduce risk of further aspiration. Management strategies for treating aspiration pneumonia are based on degree of diagnostic certainty, time of onset, and host factors.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".