MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE CONTRIBUTION OF BIOPHYSICAL LUNG INJURY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOTRAUMA

2005· review· en· W2162699944 on OpenAlexaff
Claúdia C. dos Santos, Arthur S. Slutsky

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Physiology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensive care medicineMedicineInflammatory responseHypoxia (environmental)Mechanism (biology)Systemic inflammatory response syndromeAcute respiratory distressRespiratory failureMechanical ventilationLungInflammationBioinformaticsImmunologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineSepsisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome who die usually succumb to multiorgan failure as opposed to hypoxia. Despite appropriate resuscitation, some patients' symptoms persist on a downward spiral, apparently propagated by an uncontained systemic inflammatory response. This phenomenon is not well understood. However, a novel hypothesis to explain this observation proposes that it is related to the life-saving ventilatory support used to treat the respiratory failure. According to this hypothesis, mechanical ventilation per se, by altering both the magnitude and the pattern of lung stretch, can cause changes in gene expression and/or cellular metabolism that ultimately can lead to the development of an overwhelming inflammatory response-even in the absence of overt structural damage. This mechanism of injury has been termed biotrauma. In this review we explore the biotrauma hypothesis, the causal relationship between biophysical injury and organ failure, and its implications for the future therapy and management of critically ill patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations165
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of PhysiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207