MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962798298 · doi:10.4187/respcare.07048

The Role of Specialty Tubes in Preventing Ventilator-Associated Events

2019· review· en· W2962798298 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Piraino

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentilator-associated pneumoniaSpecialtyMechanical ventilationIntensive care medicineEndotracheal tubePneumoniaIncidence (geometry)Emergency medicineMechanical ventilatorIntensive care unitSurgeryIntubationInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been many innovations to the standard endotracheal tube over the years, many of which were intended to reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Ventilator-associated events are associated with the objective outcomes of increased duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, and increased risk of mortality. Many specialty tubes have been associated with a reduction in the clinical diagnosis of VAP, but studies have failed to show differences in objective outcomes. This article reviews the evidence related to specialty tubes and discusses their role in improving objective outcomes associated with ventilator-associated events.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207