Extracorporeal Strategies in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the breadth of life-sustaining interventions available, mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. A greater appreciation of the potential iatrogenic injury associated with the use of mechanical ventilation has led clinicians and researchers to seek alternatives. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) may be used to rescue patients with severely impaired gas exchange and provide time for injured lungs to recover while treating the underlying disease. In patients with ARDS, venovenous (VV) ECLS is commonly used, where venous blood is drained into a circuit that passes through a membrane lung, which provides gas exchange, and then returned to the venous system. VV-ECLS can be configured as a system that uses higher blood flows with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) or as one that uses lower blood flows for extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (VV-ECCO2R). Recent studies support the use of VV-ECMO in patients with severe ARDS who present with refractory gas exchange despite the use of lung-protective mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure optimization, neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. The optimal management of patients during ECLS (i.e., anticoagulation, transfusions, mechanical ventilation) and the role of ECCO2R in the management of ARDS remain to be determined.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".