Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In light of emerging data from clinical trials, the place of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is uncertain. This review provides an overview of these new clinical data and also explores new areas of investigation for HFOV in adults. RECENT FINDINGS: While prior meta-analyses suggested benefit for HFOV, updated systematic reviews published this year, which include two large recent clinical trials, now show no statistically significant impact of HFOV on mortality in adults with ARDS. It is possible that HFOV would be safer and more effective with a more individualized approach to setting mean airway pressure (mPaw). Possible techniques to achieve this include titrating mPaw in response to oxygenation or hemodynamic changes after HFOV initiation, by measuring respiratory system impedance, or by following echocardiographic changes. SUMMARY: Although not first-line, HFOV remains a tool in the armamentarium of the intensivist managing the patient with severe ARDS and refractory hypoxemia. A refinement in the approach to delivering HFOV is warranted, with more attention paid to its adverse hemodynamic consequences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".