MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945843985 · doi:10.4187/respcare.07055

Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury: Classic and Novel Concepts

2019· review· en· W2945843985 on OpenAlexaff
Bhushan H. Katira

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlateau pressureIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)Mechanical ventilationPositive pressure ventilationIntubationTidal volumeHarmRespiratory failureAnesthesiaRespiratory systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is a central confounder to improving outcomes from use of positive-pressure ventilation in critical illness. Therefore, with increasing use of positive-pressure ventilation, awareness to prevent VILI has grown. Because VILI cannot be diagnosed at the bedside, its prevention can only be attained by identifying the clinical mechanisms of harm, such as high tidal volume, high plateau pressure, and so forth, which, in turn, are derived from decades of laboratory work. The practice of positive-pressure ventilation has undergone a significant change; most important in the past decade is the preference to use noninvasive ventilation. Although noninvasive ventilation prevents the complications of intubation, it has potential to cause harm, especially in patients with de novo respiratory failure. This review covers some of the classic and emerging concepts of VILI genesis and their role during noninvasive ventilation. Combined modulation of these mechanisms could have a potential to impact outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207