MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590588347 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201609-1773cp

F <scp>ifty</scp> Y <scp>ears of</scp> R <scp>esearch in</scp> ARDS. The Epidemiology of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A 50th Birthday Review

2017· article· en· W2590588347 on OpenAlexaff
Tài Pham, Gordon D. Rubenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSRespiratory distressAcute respiratory distressLungInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its first description 50 years ago, no other intensive care syndrome has been as extensively studied as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Despite this extensive body of research, many basic epidemiologic questions remain unsolved. The lack of gold standard tests jeopardizes accurate diagnosis and translational research. Wide variation in the population incidence has been reported, making even simple estimates of the burden of disease problematic. Despite these limitations, there has been an increase in the understanding of pathophysiology and important risk factors both for the development of ARDS and for important patient-centered outcomes like mortality. In this Critical Care Perspective, we discuss the historical context of ARDS description and attempts at its definition. We highlight the epidemiologic challenges of studying ARDS, as well as other intensive care syndromes, and propose solutions to address them. We update the current knowledge of ARDS trends in incidence and mortality, risk factors, and recently described endotypes.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations267
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207