Driving Pressure Is a Risk Factor for ARDS in Mechanically Ventilated Subjects Without ARDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Driving pressure (ΔP) has been described as a risk factor for mortality in patients with ARDS. However, the role of ΔP in the outcome of patients without ARDS and on mechanical ventilation has received less attention. Our objective was to evaluate the association between ΔP on the first day of mechanical ventilation with the development of ARDS. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational, international study that included subjects who were on mechanical ventilation for > 12 h. Our objective was to evaluate the association between ΔP on the first day of mechanical ventilation with the development of ARDS. To assess the effect of ΔP, a logistic regression analysis was performed when adjusting for other potential risk factors. Validation of the results obtained was performed by using a bootstrap method and by repeating the same analyses at day 2. RESULTS: A total of 1,575 subjects were included, of whom 65 (4.1%) developed ARDS. The ΔP was independently associated with ARDS (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI 1.07–1.18 for each cm H 2 O of ΔP increase, P < .001). The same results were observed at day 2 (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07–1.21; P < .001) and after bootstrap validation (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04–1.22; P < .001). When taking the prevalence of ARDS in the lowest quartile of ΔP (≤9 cm H 2 O) as a reference, the subjects with ΔP > 12–15 cm H 2 O and those with ΔP > 15 cm H 2 O presented a higher probability of ARDS (OR 3.65, 95% CI 1.32–10.04 [ P = .01] and OR 7.31, 95% CI, 2.89–18.50 [ P < .001], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In the subjects without ARDS, a higher level of ΔP on the first day of mechanical ventilation was associated with later development of ARDS. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02731898.)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".