Diagnostic Strategy for Hematology and Oncology Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Respiratory events are common in hematology and oncology patients and manifest as hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) in up to half the cases. Identifying the cause of ARF is crucial. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (FO-BAL) is an invasive test that may cause respiratory deterioration. Recent noninvasive diagnostic tests may have modified the risk/benefit ratio of FO-BAL. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether FO-BAL in cancer patients with ARF increased the need for intubation and whether noninvasive testing alone was not inferior to noninvasive testing plus FO-BAL. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial with sample size calculations for both end points. Patients with cancer and ARF of unknown cause who were not receiving ventilatory support at intensive care unit admission were randomized to early FO-BAL plus noninvasive tests (n = 113) or noninvasive tests only (n = 106). The primary end point was the number of patients needing intubation and mechanical ventilation. The major secondary end point was the number of patients with no identified cause of ARF. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The need for mechanical ventilation was not significantly greater in the FO-BAL group than in the noninvasive group (35.4 vs. 38.7%; P = 0.62). The proportion of patients with no diagnosis was not smaller in the noninvasive group (21.7 vs. 20.4%; difference, -1.3% [-10.4 to 7.7]). CONCLUSIONS: FO-BAL performed in the intensive care unit did not significantly increase intubation requirements in critically ill cancer patients with ARF. Noninvasive testing alone was not inferior to noninvasive testing plus FO-BAL for identifying the cause of ARF. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00248443).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".