Rationale and study design for an individualised perioperative open-lung ventilatory strategy with a high versus conventional inspiratory oxygen fraction (iPROVE-O2) and its effects on surgical site infection: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Surgical site infection (SSI) is a serious postoperative complication that increases morbidity and healthcare costs. SSIs tend to increase as the partial pressure of tissue oxygen decreases: previous trials have focused on trying to reduce them by comparing high versus conventional inspiratory oxygen fractions (FIO 2 ) in the perioperative period but did not use a protocolised ventilatory strategy. The open-lung ventilatory approach restores functional lung volume and improves gas exchange, and therefore it may increase the partial pressure of tissue oxygen for a given FIO 2 . The trial presented here aims to compare the efficacy of high versus conventional FIO 2 in reducing the overall incidence of SSIs in patients by implementing a protocolised and individualised global approach to perioperative open-lung ventilation. Methods and analysis This is a comparative, prospective, multicentre, randomised and controlled two-arm trial that will include 756 patients scheduled for abdominal surgery. The patients will be randomised into two groups: (1) a high FIO 2 group (80% oxygen; FIO 2 of 0.80) and (2) a conventional FIO 2 group (30% oxygen; FIO 2 of 0.30). Each group will be assessed intra- and postoperatively. The primary outcome is the appearance of postoperative SSI complications. Secondary outcomes are the appearance of systemic and pulmonary complications. Ethics and dissemination The iPROVE-O2 trial has been approved by the Ethics Review Board at the reference centre (the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valencia). Informed consent will be obtained from all patients before their participation. If the approach using high FIO 2 during individualised open-lung ventilation decreases SSIs, use of this method will become standard practice for patients scheduled for future abdominal surgery. Publication of the results is anticipated in early 2019. Trial registration number NCT02776046; Pre-results.
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 | 0.097 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.014 |
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".