Extubation Success Prediction in a Multicentric Cohort of Patients with Severe Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with brain injury are at high risk of extubation failure. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study in four intensive care units of three university hospitals. The aim of the study was to create a score that could predict extubation success in patients with brain injury. RESULTS: A total of 437 consecutive patients with brain injury were included, and 338 patients (77.3%) displayed successful extubation. In the multivariate analysis, four features were associated with success the day of extubation: age less than 40 yr, visual pursuit, swallowing attempts, and a Glasgow coma score greater than 10. In the score, each item counted as one. A score of 3 or greater was associated with 90% extubation success. The area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81). After internal validation by bootstrap, the area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.79). Extubation success was significantly associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (11 [95% CI, 5 to 17 days] vs. 22 days [95% CI, 13 to 29 days]; P < 0.0001), shorter intensive care unit length of stay (15 [95% CI, 9 to 23 days] vs. 27 days [95% CI, 21 to 36 days]; P < 0.0001), and lower in-intensive care unit mortality (4 [1.2%] vs. 11 [11.1%]; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our score exploring both airway functions and neurologic status may increase the probability of successful extubation in patients with severe brain injury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".