Design and Rationale of the Reevaluation of Systemic Early Neuromuscular Blockade Trial for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Reevaluation of Systemic Early Neuromuscular Blockade (ROSE) trial is a multicenter, randomized trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of early neuromuscular blockade in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. This document provides background for interpretation of the trial results, and highlights unique design approaches that may inform future trials of acute illness. We describe the process by which ROSE was chosen as the inaugural trial of the multidisciplinary Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network, provide the trial methodology using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials framework, and discuss key design challenges and their resolution. Four key design issues proved challenging-feasibility, choice of sedation depth in the control group, impact of emphasizing early treatment on enrollment criteria and protocol execution, and choice of positive end-expiratory pressure strategy. We used literature, an iterative consensus model, and internal surveys of current practice to inform design choice. ROSE will provide definitive, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials adherent data on early neuromuscular blockade for future patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Our multidisciplinary approach to trial design may be of use to other trials of acute illness. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02509078).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".