MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279863758 · doi:10.1177/1753495x15589223

Acute respiratory failure in pregnancy

2015· review· en· W2279863758 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

VenueObstetric Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyRespiratory failureFetusAmniotic fluid embolismIntubationRespiratory systemPreeclampsiaObstetricsIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Respiratory failure affects up to 0.2% of pregnancies, more commonly in the postpartum period. Altered maternal respiratory physiology affects the assessment and management of these patients. Respiratory failure may result from pregnancy-specific conditions such as preeclampsia, amniotic fluid embolism or peripartum cardiomyopathy. Pregnancy may increase the risk or severity of other conditions, including thromboembolism, asthma, viral pneumonitis, and gastric acid aspiration. Management during pregnancy is similar to the nonpregnant patient. Endotracheal intubation in pregnancy carries an increased risk, due to airway edema and rapid oxygen desaturation following apnea. Few data are available to direct prolonged mechanical ventilation in pregnancy. Chest wall compliance is reduced, perhaps permitting slightly higher airway pressures. Optimizing oxygenation is important, but data on the use of permissive hypercapnia are limited. Delivery of the fetus does not always improve maternal respiratory function, but should be considered if benefit to the fetus is anticipated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.290 · 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