MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792654133 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000003000

The Randomized Educational Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Diagnosis Study: A Trial to Improve the Radiographic Diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome*

2018· article· en· W2792654133 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon L. Goddard, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Venika Manoharan, Shelly P. Dev, John G. Laffey, Giacomo Bellani, Tài Pham, Eddy Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute respiratory distressRespiratory distressRandomized controlled trialDistressRadiographyRespiratory systemIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicineRadiologyLungClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Radiographic criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome have been criticized for poor reliability. Our objective was to test an educational intervention to improve the radiographic identification of acute respiratory distress syndrome by participants in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure study. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure study centers. SUBJECTS: Study coordinators in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure study. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to either an online training module followed by a test module (intervention) or test module followed by training module (control). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the number of radiographs correctly identified as meeting criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome on an online test module (out of 11). Prespecified secondary analyses included a comparison of agreement between the groups and subgroup analyses by profession, age, years of experience, and stated familiarity with diagnostic criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Four-hundred sixty-three study participants consented to participate. There was no effect of the intervention on correct answers by participants (proportion correct 58% [intervention] vs 56% [control]; p = 0.15), or in any subgroup analyses. Overall agreement between raters was 0.296 for the intervention and 0.272 for the control (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Participant recognition of radiographic criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome was low, with poor agreement. This was not impacted by an educational intervention designed to improve accuracy of identification of radiographic criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207