Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been purported to have several physiological benefits. This review synthesizes recent research evaluating APRV mode and provides perspectives on the utility of this mode in children with ARDS. RECENT FINDINGS: Two single-center clinical trials on APRV, one adult and one pediatric, have been published this year. These two trials have not only elicited editorials and letters that highlight some of their strengths and weaknesses but also rekindled debate on several aspects of APRV. Despite their contradicting results, both trials provide significant insights into APRV strategies that work and those that may not. This review places the newer evidence in the context of existing literature and provides a comprehensive analysis of APRV use in children. SUMMARY: There have been significant recent advancements in our understanding of the clinical utility of APRV in children with ARDS. The recent trial highlights the urgent need to evolve a consensus on definition of APRV and identify strategies that work. Pending further research, clinicians should avoid the use of a zero-PLOW Personalized-APRV strategy as a primary ventilation modality in children with moderate-severe 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 | 0.000 | 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".