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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".