MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609474397 · doi:10.4187/respcare.05485

Variation in Definition of Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation

2017· review· en· W2609474397 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioLondon Health Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineWestern UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreToronto East General HospitalUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEuropean Society of Intensive Care MedicineNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationCohortVentilation (architecture)Intensive care unitPopulationCOPDRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyIntensive careEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consistency of definitional criteria for terminology applied to describe subject cohorts receiving mechanical ventilation within ICU and post-acute care settings is important for understanding prevalence, risk stratification, effectiveness of interventions, and projections for resource allocation. Our objective was to quantify the application and definition of terms for prolonged mechanical ventilation. We conducted a scoping review of studies (all designs except single-case study) reporting a study population (adult and pediatric) using the term prolonged mechanical ventilation or a synonym. We screened 5,331 references, reviewed 539 full-text references, and excluded 120. Of the 419 studies (representing 38 countries) meeting inclusion criteria, 297 (71%) reported data on a heterogeneous subject cohort, and 66 (16%) included surgical subjects only (46 of those 66, 70% cardiac surgery). Other studies described COPD (16, 4%), trauma (22, 5%), neuromuscular (17, 4%), and sepsis (1, 0.2%) cohorts. A total of 741 terms were used to refer to the 419 study cohorts. The most common terms were: prolonged mechanical ventilation (253, 60%), admission to specialized unit (107, 26%), and long-term mechanical ventilation (79, 19%). Some authors (282, 67%) defined their cohorts based on duration of mechanical ventilation, with 154 studies (55%) using this as the sole criterion. We identified 37 different durations of ventilation ranging from 5 h to 1 y, with > 21 d being the most common (28 of 282, 7%). For studies describing a surgical cohort, minimum ventilation duration required for inclusion was ≥ 24 h for 20 of 66 studies (30%). More than half of all studies (237, 57%) did not provide a reason/rationale for definitional criteria used, with only 28 studies (7%) referring to a consensus definition. We conclude that substantial variation exists in the terminology and definitional criteria for cohorts of subjects receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation. Standardization of terminology and definitional criteria is required for study data to be maximally informative.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.197 · 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