Mechanical Ventilation in Adults with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Summary of the Experimental Evidence for the Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The American Thoracic Society/European Society for Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines on mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) provide treatment recommendations derived from a thorough analysis of the clinical evidence on six clinical interventions. However, each of the recommendations contains areas of uncertainty and controversy, which may affect their appropriate clinical application. OBJECTIVES: To provide a critical review of the experimental evidence surrounding the pathophysiology of ventilator-induced lung injury and to help clinicians apply the clinical recommendations to individual patients. METHODS: We conducted a literature search and narrative review. RESULTS: A large number of experimental studies have been performed with the aim of improving understanding of the pathophysiological effects of mechanical ventilation. These studies have formed the basis for the design of many clinical trials. Translational research has fundamentally advanced understanding of the mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury, thus informing the design of interventions that improve survival in patients with ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Because daily management of patients with ARDS presents the challenge of competing considerations, clinicians should consider the mechanism of ventilator-induced lung injury, as well as the rationale for interventions designed to mitigate it, when applying evidence-based recommendations at the bedside.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".