Should Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Have Ventilatory Support Reduced to the Lowest Tolerable Settings? Yes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 2Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4Keenan Research Center, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. Dr. Zakhary disclosed off-label product use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure. Dr. Fan received funding from MC3 Cardiopulmonary and ALung Technologies, and he is supported by a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Slutsky received funding from Maquet Critical Care, Novalung, and Baxter. Address requests for reprints to: Bishoy Zakhary, MD, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd UHN67, Portland, OR 97239-3098. E-mail: [email protected]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".