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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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