Development and Content Validation of a Multidisciplinary Standardized Management Pathway for Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome is complex. Evidence-based therapies that can improve survival and guidelines advocating their use exist; however, implementation is inconsistent. Our objective was to develop and validate an evidence-based, stakeholder-informed standardized management pathway for hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome to improve adherence to best practice. DESIGN: A standardized management pathway was developed using a modified Delphi consensus process with a multidisciplinary group of ICU clinicians. The proposed pathway was externally validated with a survey involving multidisciplinary stakeholders and clinicians. SETTING: In-person meeting and web-based surveys of ICU clinicians from 17 adult ICUs in the province of Alberta, Canada. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The consensus panel was comprised of 30 ICU clinicians (4 nurses, 10 respiratory therapists, 15 intensivists, 1 nurse practitioner; median years of practice 17 [interquartile range, 13-21]). Ninety-one components were serially rated and revised over two rounds of online and one in-person review. The final pathway included 46 elements. For the validation survey, 692 responses (including 59% nurses, 33% respiratory therapists, 7% intensivists and 1% nurse practitioners) were received. Agreement of greater than 75% was achieved on 43 of 46 pathway elements. CONCLUSIONS: A 46-element evidence-informed hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome standardized management pathway was developed and demonstrated to have content validity.
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 | 0.102 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".