MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045307621 · doi:10.5603/arm.2020.0110

Non-Invasive Ventilation in Patients with an Altered Level of Consciousness. A Clinical Review and Practical Insights

2020· review· en· W3045307621 on OpenAlexaff
Gil Gonçalves, Haitham Saeed, Mohamed E. A. Abdelrahim, Hadeer S. Harb, Yasmin M. Madney, Kevin J. Eng, Habib Md Reazaul Karim, Mohamad F. El‐Khatib, Bushra Mina, Szymon Skoczyński, Irena Šarc, Vânia Caldeira, Sara Moura Cabral, Bruno Cabrita, Miguel Guia, Jun Duan, Igor Barjaktarević, Giuseppe Fiorentino, Edoardo Piervincenzi, Güniz M. Köksal, Sibel O. Sarin, Peter J. Papadakos, Benan Bayrakçı, Vijay Hadda, G Laier-Groeneveld, Karen E. A. Burns, Raffaele Scala, Andrés Carrillo‐Alcaraz, António M. Esquinas

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in respiratory medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)SedationContext (archaeology)Endotracheal intubationIntubationLevel of consciousnessNoninvasive ventilationAnesthesiaMechanical ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-invasive ventilation has gained an increasingly pivotal role in the treatment of acute hypoxemic and/or hypercapnic respira-tory failure and offers multiple advantages over invasive mechanical ventilation. Some of these advantages include the preserva-tion of airway defense mechanisms, a reduced need for sedation, and an avoidance of complications related to endotracheal intubation. Despite its advantages, non-invasive ventilation has some contraindications that include, among them, severe encephalopathy. In this review article, the rationale, evidence, and drawbacks of the use of noninvasive ventilation in the context of hypercapnic and non-hypercapnic patients with an altered level of consciousness are analyzed.

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 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 score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in respiratory medicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207