MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618684075 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1600909

Management of Acute Respiratory Failure in Pregnancy

2017· review· en· W2618684075 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyRespiratory failureFetusAmniotic fluid embolismIntubationObstetricsIntensive care medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Respiratory failure affects up to 1 in 500 pregnancies, more commonly in the postpartum period. The causes of respiratory failure include several pregnancy-specific conditions such as preeclampsia, amniotic fluid embolism, and peripartum cardiomyopathy. Pregnancy may also increase the risk or severity of other conditions, such as asthma, thromboembolism, viral pneumonitis, and gastric acid aspiration. Changes to maternal respiratory physiology and the presence of a fetus may affect the assessment and management of these patients. In addition to identifying pregnancy-specific causes, some differences exist in the management of the pregnant woman with acute respiratory failure. Endotracheal intubation in pregnancy carries a significant risk, due to upper airway edema and rapid oxygen desaturation following apnea. Few studies have addressed prolonged mechanical ventilation management in pregnancy. Optimizing oxygenation is important, but whether permissive hypercapnia is tolerated during pregnancy remains unclear. Delivery of the fetus is often considered but does not always improve maternal respiratory function and should be reserved only for cases where benefit to the fetus is anticipated.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.342 · 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