MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296154046 · doi:10.5603/ait.2016.0011

Cut-off point for switching from non- -invasive ventilation to intubation in severe ARDS. Fifty shades of grey?

2016· letter· en· W2296154046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luc Quintin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesiology Intensive Therapy · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsARDSMedicineIntubationVentilation (architecture)Mechanical ventilationIntensive careAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Quintin L. Cut-off point for switching from non-invasive ventilation to intubation in severe ARDS. Fifty shades of grey?. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2016;48(1). APA Quintin, L. (2016). Cut-off point for switching from non-invasive ventilation to intubation in severe ARDS. Fifty shades of grey?. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 48(1). Chicago Quintin, Luc. 2016. "Cut-off point for switching from non-invasive ventilation to intubation in severe ARDS. Fifty shades of grey?". Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy 48 (1). Harvard Quintin, L. (2016). Cut-off point for switching from non-invasive ventilation to intubation in severe ARDS. Fifty shades of grey?. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 48(1). MLA Quintin, Luc. "Cut-off point for switching from non-invasive ventilation to intubation in severe ARDS. Fifty shades of grey?." Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, vol. 48, no. 1, 2016. Vancouver Quintin L. Cut-off point for switching from non-invasive ventilation to intubation in severe ARDS. Fifty shades of grey?. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2016;48(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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.017

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiology Intensive TherapySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207