MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lung ultrasound predicts non-invasive ventilation outcome in COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: a pilot study

2021· article· en· W3178410725 on OpenAlexaff
Daniele Guerino Biasucci, Danilo Buonsenso, A. Piano, Nicola Bonadia, Joel Vargas, Donatella Settanni, Maria Grazia Bocci, Domenico Luca Grieco, Annamaria Carnicelli, Giancarlo Scoppettuolo, Davide Eleuteri, Gennaro De Pascale, Mariano Alberto Pennisi, Francesco Franceschi, Massimo Antonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Anestesiologica · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationIntensive care unitLung ultrasoundRespiratory failureOxygenationLungArea under the curveVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaProspective cohort studyIntensive careInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine relationships between lung aeration assessed by lung ultrasound (LUS) with non-invasive ventilation (NIMV) outcome, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mechanical ventilation (MV) needs in COVID-19 respiratory failure. METHODS: A cohort of adult patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure underwent LUS during initial assessment. A simplified LUS protocol consisting in scanning six areas, three for each side, was adopted. A score from 0 to 3 was assigned to each area. Comprehensive LUS score (LUSsc) was calculated as the sum of the score in all areas. LUSsc, the amount of involved sonographic lung areas (LUSq), the number of lung quadrants radiographically infiltrated and the degree of oxygenation impairment at admission (SpO<inf>2</inf>/FiO2 ratio) were compared to NIMV Outcome, MV needs and ICU admission. RESULTS: Among 85 patients prospectively included in the analysis, 49 of 61 needed MV. LUSsc and LUSq were higher in patients who required MV (median 12 [IQR 8-14] and median 6 [IQR 4-6], respectively) than in those who did not (6 [IQR 2-9] and 3 [IQR 1-5], respectively), both P<0.001. NIMV trial failed in 26 patients out 36. LUSsc and LUSq were significantly higher in patients who failed NIMV than in those who did not. From ROC analysis, LUSsc ≥12 and LUSq ≥5 gave the best cut-off values for NIMV failure prediction (AUC=0.95, 95%CI 0.83-0.99 and AUC=0.81, 95% CI 0.65-0.91, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest LUS as a possible tool for identifying patients who are likely to require MV and ICU admission or to fail a NIMV trial.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva AnestesiologicaSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207