MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3036650866 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.017111

Perspectives on Cardiopulmonary Critical Care for Patients With COVID‐19: From Members of the American Heart Association Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation

2020· article· en· W3036650866 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley A. Maron, Mark T. Gladwin, Sébastien Bonnet, Vinicio de Jesús Pérez, Sarah M. Perman, Paul B. Yu, Fumito Ichinose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsCardiopulmonary resuscitationMedicineFamily medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

he coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), marks a global event that will permanently reshape implementation of intensive care medicine.As of June 4, 2020, there were 6 606 455 reported cases of COVID-19, including 388 556 fatalities spanning 215 countries and territories, although epidemiologic data remain incomplete.Early autopsy reports emphasize proximal airway and distal airspace involvement, including alveolar epithelial inflammation and capillary thickening.These processes appear to promote acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and increased susceptibility to cytokine storm, resulting in respiratory failure and circulatory collapse in severe cases.Cardiomyopathy (particularly myocarditis) and ventricular arrhythmia further complicate management.Indeed, the mortality among ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is as high as 50% 1 ; thus, critical care medicine has emerged as a central focus of the COVID-19 clinical spectrum.Here, critical care medicine and other matters of cardiopulmonary health important to the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. PATIENT ISOLATION AND PROTECTION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERSExposure to SARS-CoV-2 requires up to 14 days of quarantine, which significantly drains provider resources.Rational policies must balance the effort to reduce risk of virus transmission and quarantine with the supply chain analysis of current and future personal protective equipment (PPE) availability.This includes systems-based preparations that recognize and plan for the increased risk associated with aerosol-generating procedures (eg, endotracheal intubation, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, jet nebulization, chest physiotherapy), including implementing droplet-level precautions under conditions in which PPE availability is limited.This also encompasses regular surgical masks on patients and providers in the inpatient and outpatient settings, 6-ft (1.8 m) distancing when possible, and gown-glove-hand washing with frequent sanitation of contact areas.Patients who are being investigated, who are hospitalized and awaiting nasal swab sample collection

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.341 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→