Acute respiratory distress syndrome definition: do we need a change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since the first description of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in 1967, no specific clinical sign or diagnostic test has yet been described that identifies ARDS. Its diagnosis is based on a combination of clinical, hemodynamic, and oxygenation criteria. The purpose of this review is to examine the current definition for ARDS and to discuss why this definition may not be the most appropriate definition for this syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: We will briefly review our current understanding of ARDS, discuss the problems with its current diagnosis, and present clinical, pathological, and biochemical evidences supporting a more appropriate definition for ARDS. In addition, we will discuss recent efforts to identify biological markers for lung injury in pulmonary edema fluid and blood collected from critically ill patients. SUMMARY: On the basis of current evidence, it is time for a change in the ARDS definition. A newer classification system that recognizes different severities of pulmonary dysfunction is needed. Such a system should be able to identify patients that would be most responsive to supportive therapies and those unlikely to benefit because of the severity of their disease.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".