Outcome of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: insights from the LUNG SAFE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Current incidence and outcome of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) are unknown, especially for patients not meeting criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods An international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of patients presenting with hypoxaemia early in the course of mechanical ventilation, conducted during four consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in 459 ICUs from 50 countries (LUNG SAFE). Patients were enrolled with arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio ≤300 mmHg, new pulmonary infiltrates and need for mechanical ventilation with a positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥5 cmH2O. ICU prevalence, causes of hypoxaemia, hospital survival and factors associated with hospital mortality were measured. Patients with unilateralversusbilateral opacities were compared. Findings 12 906 critically ill patients received mechanical ventilation and 34.9% with hypoxaemia and new infiltrates were enrolled, separated into ARDS (69.0%), unilateral infiltrate (22.7%) and congestive heart failure (CHF; 8.2%). The global hospital mortality was 38.6%. CHF patients had a mortality comparable to ARDS (44.1%versus40.4%). Patients with unilateral-infiltrate had lower unadjusted mortality, but similar adjusted mortality compared to those with ARDS. The number of quadrants on chest imaging was associated with an increased risk of death. There was no difference in mortality comparing patients with unilateral-infiltrate and ARDS with only two quadrants involved. Interpretation More than one-third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation have hypoxaemia and new infiltrates with a hospital mortality of 38.6%. Survival is dependent on the degree of pulmonary involvement whether or not ARDS criteria are reached.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".