The Effect of ARDS on Survival: Do Patients Die From ARDS or With ARDS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:: To investigate the contribution of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in of itself to mortality among ventilated patients. DESIGN AND SETTING:: A longitudinal retrospective study of ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. PATIENTS:: The analysis included patients ventilated for more than 48 hours. Patients were classified as having ARDS on admission (early-onset ARDS), late-onset ARDS (ARDS not present during the first 24 hours of admission), or no ARDS. Primary outcomes were mortality at 28 days, and secondary outcomes were 2-year mortality rate from ICU admission. RESULTS:: A total of 1411 ventilated patients were enrolled: 41% had ARDS on admission, 28.5% developed ARDS during their ICU stay, and 30.5% did not meet the ARDS criteria prior to ICU discharge or death. The non-ARDS group was used as the control. We also divided the cohort based on the severity of ARDS. After adjusting for covariates, mortality risk at 28 days was not significantly different among the different groups. Both early- and late-onset ARDS as well as the severity of ARDS were found to be significant risk factors for 2 years from ICU survival. CONCLUSION:: Among patients who were ventilated on ICU admission, neither the presence, the severity, or the timing of ARDS contribute independently to the short-term mortality risk. However, acute respiratory distress syndrome does contribute significantly to 2-year mortality risk. This suggests that patients may not die acutely from ARDS itself but rather from the primary disease, and during the acute phase of ARDS, clinicians should focus on improving treatment strategies for the diseases that led to ARDS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".