Epidemiology of Weaning Outcome according to a New Definition. The WIND Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The weaning process concerns all patients receiving mechanical ventilation. A previous classification into simple, prolonged, and difficult weaning ignored weaning failure and presupposed the use of spontaneous breathing trials. OBJECTIVES: To describe the weaning process, defined as starting with any attempt at separation from mechanical ventilation and its prognosis, according to a new operational classification working for all patients under ventilation. METHODS: This was a multinational prospective multicenter observational study over 3 months of all patients receiving mechanical ventilation in 36 intensive care units, with daily collection of ventilation and weaning modalities. Pragmatic definitions of separation attempt and weaning success allowed us to allocate patients in four groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 2,729 patients were enrolled. Although half of them could not be classified using the previous definition, 99% entered the groups on the basis of our new definition as follows: 24% never started a weaning process, 57% had a weaning process of less than 24 hours (group 1), 10% had a difficult weaning of more than 1 day and less than 1 week (group 2), and 9% had a prolonged weaning duration of 1 week or more (group 3). Duration of ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and mortality (6, 17, and 29% for the three groups, respectively) all significantly increased from one group to the next. The unadjusted risk of dying was 19% after the first separation attempt and increased to 37% after 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: A new classification allows us to categorize all weaning situations. Every additional day without a weaning success after the first separation attempt increases the risk of dying.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".