Considerations for the use and study of exogenous surfactant in respiratory disease from COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exogenous surfactant therapy has been widely studied in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but has failed to show mortality benefit in several trials. The COVID-19 pandemic has renewed interest in exogenous surfactant, and clinical trials are investigating surfactant therapy in COVID-19 respiratory disease. There is biological plausibility of benefit from surfactant, and patients who are early in their disease and do not meet full ARDS diagnostic criteria may respond differently, and perhaps more favourably, to surfactant therapy. Clinical trials that investigate patients with severe ARDS have a high likelihood of reproducing already known findings of surfactant therapy and systematically exclude patients who might exhibit a novel response to exogenous surfactant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.337 | 0.322 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".