MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967981766 · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9302

Extracorporeal Life Support for Adults With Respiratory Failure and Related Indications

2019· review· en· W2967981766 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

VenueJAMA · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporealLife supportIntensive care medicineRandomized controlled trialRespiratory failureExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationClinical trialRespiratory distressARDSSurgeryInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: The substantial growth over the last decade in the use of extracorporeal life support for adults with acute respiratory failure reveals an enthusiasm for the technology not always consistent with the evidence. However, recent high-quality data, primarily in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, have made extracorporeal life support more widely accepted in clinical practice. OBSERVATIONS: Clinical trials of extracorporeal life support for acute respiratory failure in adults in the 1970s and 1990s failed to demonstrate benefit, reducing use of the intervention for decades and relegating it to a small number of centers. Nonetheless, technological improvements in extracorporeal support made it safer to use. Interest in extracorporeal life support increased with the confluence of 2 events in 2009: (1) the publication of a randomized clinical trial of extracorporeal life support for acute respiratory failure and (2) the use of extracorporeal life support in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome during the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. In 2018, a randomized clinical trial in patients with very severe acute respiratory distress syndrome demonstrated a seemingly large decrease in mortality from 46% to 35%, but this difference was not statistically significant. However, a Bayesian post hoc analysis of this trial and a subsequent meta-analysis together suggested that extracorporeal life support was beneficial for patients with very severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. As the evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal life support increases, its indications are expanding to being a bridge to lung transplantation and the management of patients with pulmonary vascular disease who have right-sided heart failure. Extracorporeal life support is now an acceptable form of organ support in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The role of extracorporeal life support in the management of adults with acute respiratory failure is being redefined by advances in technology and increasing evidence of its effectiveness. Future developments in the field will result from technological advances, an increased understanding of the physiology and biology of extracorporeal support, and increased knowledge of how it might benefit the treatment of a variety of clinical conditions.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.238 · 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