A Core Outcome Set for Research in Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A core set of outcomes have been identified and published, which are essential to include in all clinical research evaluating the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically ill patients, particularly regarding safety and adverse events. The purpose of this international modified Delphi study was to determine which measurement tools and the timing of measurement should be selected for the core outcome set for research evaluating patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. DESIGN: This was a two-round international, multidisciplinary web-based, modified Delphi study. PATIENTS: Participants were identified from the International Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Network and the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, including consumers, multidisciplinary clinicians, researchers and industry partners. MEASUREMENTS: Measurement tools and the timing of measurement were identified from a systematic review of the literature and clinical trials registrations. The primary outcome was the percentage of respondents who completed each survey and indicated that a measurement tool as well as the timing of the measurement should "always" be included in a core outcome set. MAIN RESULTS: Participant response rates were 46 of 65 (71%) and 40 of 46 (87%) for rounds one and two, respectively, with participants representing, researchers, consumers, and industry partners from 15 countries over five continents. Seven measurement tools were identified for the core outcome set of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified appropriate measurement instruments and the timing of measurement to include in the core outcome set for research evaluating patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. This was an important final step to standardize and synthesize research efforts internationally.
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 | 0.280 | 0.337 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".