Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multiple clinical and laboratory studies have been conducted to illustrate the effects of hypercapnia in a range of injuries, and to understand the mechanisms underlying these effects. The aim of this review is to highlight and interpret information obtained from these recent reports and discuss how they may inform the clinical context. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last decade, several important articles have addressed key elements of how carbon dioxide interacts in critical illness states. Among them the most important insights relate to how hypercapnia affects critical illness and include the effects and mechanisms of carbon dioxide in pulmonary hypertension, infection, inflammation, diaphragm dysfunction, and cerebral ischemia. In addition, we discuss molecular insights that apply to multiple aspects of critical illness. SUMMARY: Experiments involving hypercapnia have covered a wide range of illness models with varying degrees of success. It is becoming evident that deliberate hypercapnia in the clinical setting should seldom be used, except wherever necessitated to avoid ventilator-associated lung injury. A more complete understanding of the molecular mechanisms must be established.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".