MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408783236 · doi:10.1177/0885066616653926

Mechanical Ventilation Outcomes in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension in the United States: A National Retrospective Cohort Analysis

2016· article· en· W2408783236 on OpenAlexaff
Barret Rush, Bradly J. Biagioni, Landon Berger, Robert C. McDermid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial HospitalVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeMechanical ventilationRetrospective cohort studyPulmonary hypertensionCohortOxygen therapyEmergency medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The outcome of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) who undergo mechanical ventilation is not well known. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample for 2006 to 2012 was used to isolate patients with a diagnosis of PAH who also underwent invasive (MV) and noninvasive (NIMV) mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The hospital records of 55 208 382 patients were studied, and there were 21 070 patients with PAH, of whom 1646 (7.8%) received MV and 834 (4.0%) received NIMV. Those receiving MV had higher mortality (39.1% vs 12.6%, P < .001) and longer hospital stays (11.9 days, interquartile range [IQR] 6.1-22.2 vs 6.7 days, IQR 3.4-11.9, P < .001) than those undergoing NIMV. Of the patients treated with MV, 4.4% also used home oxygen therapy and had similar overall mortality to those who did not use home oxygen (35.3% vs 39.1%, P = .46). Similarly, there was no relationship between home oxygen use and mortality in patients treated with NIMV (10.6% vs 12.6%, P = .48). Notably, more patients treated with NIMV used home oxygen than those treated with MV (14.4% vs 4.4%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with PAH who undergo invasive mechanical ventilation have an in-hospital mortality of 39.1%. Future work may help identify the types of patients who benefit most from advanced respiratory support in a critical care setting.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intensive Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207