MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971897270 · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212885

New UK guidelines for the management of adult patients with ARDS

2019· editorial· en· W2971897270 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Griffiths, Eddy Fan, Simon Baudouin

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSGuidelineObservational studyIntensive care medicineIntensive carePsychological interventionQuality of life (healthcare)Mechanical ventilationEmergency medicineIntensive care unitInternal medicineNursingLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was first reported in a case series from Denver in 1967, 1 and remains a major problem in the severely ill.This was highlighted by data from the recently published Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) trial, which recorded admissions over 4 weeks to 459 intensive care units (ICUs) in 50 countries and included 29 144 patients.In total, 3022 (10.4%) cases fulfilled ARDS criteria, including almost a quarter of those supported with invasive mechanical ventilation.2 ARDS was associated both with high mortality and prolonged length of stay.In addition, long-term follow-up studies of patients with ARDS indicate high long-term morbidity and decreased quality of life.3 There is therefore a real need to improve outcomes in ARDS.With this aim in mind, the Intensive Care Society (ICS)/Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (FICM) guideline for the management of the ARDS in adults was published towards the end of 2018. 4 The multidisciplinary Guideline Development Group used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.009

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207