MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511618754 · doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1443-x

The LUNG SAFE study: a presentation of the prevalence of ARDS according to the Berlin Definition!

2016· letter· en· W2511618754 on OpenAlexaff
Giacomo Bellani, John G. Laffey, Tài Pham, Eddy Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersEuropean Society of Intensive Care Medicine
KeywordsMedicineARDSPresentation (obstetrics)Intensive care medicineEmergency medicineLungPediatricsInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Villar et al. First, they suggest that an "unvalidated algorithm" was used to classify patients with ARDS. We simply utilized the Berlin Definition for ARDS When the Berlin criteria were met, patients were classified as having ARDS-this is the "computer algorithm". There was no need to "validate" this algorithm, since it simply verifies the presence or absence of Berlin ARDS criteria. The electronic CRF provided additional guidance, including what specifically was meant by "bilateral infiltrates", and investigators were offered web-based training on chest X-ray image interpretation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations75
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207