Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Children at the Start of COVID-19 Outbreak: A Nationwide Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study design: This is a prospective, multicenter, and observational study with the aim of describing physiological characteristics, respiratory management, and outcomes of children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) from different etiologies receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) compared with those affected by SARS-CoV-2. Methods and Main Results: Twenty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria: 9 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 19 patients without COVID-19. Non-COVID-19 patients had more pre-existing comorbidities (78.9% vs. 44.4%) than COVID-19 patients. At AHRF onset, non-COVID-19 patients had worse oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 = 95 mmHg (65.5–133) vs. 150 mmHg (105–220), p = 0.04), oxygenation index = 15.9 (11–28.4) vs. 9.3 (6.7–10.6), p = 0.01), and higher PaCO2 (48 mmHg (46.5–63) vs. 41 mmHg (40–45), p = 0.07, that remained higher at 48 h: 54 mmHg (43–58.7) vs. 41 (38.5–45.5), p = 0.03). In 12 patients (5 COVID-19 and 7 non-COVID-19), AHRF evolved to pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). All non-COVID-19 patients had severe PARDS, while 3 out of 5 patients in the COVID-19 group had mild or moderate PARDS. Overall Pediatric Intensive Care Medicine (PICU) mortality was 14.3%. Conclusions: Children with AHRF due to SARS-CoV2 infection had fewer comorbidities and better oxygenation than patients with non-COVID-19 AHRF. In this study, progression to severe PARDS was rarely observed in children with COVID-19.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".