MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4232627680 · doi:10.3410/f.732571603.793550407

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Does extracorporeal membrane oxygenation improve survival in pediatric acute respiratory failure?

2018· dataset· en· W4232627680 on OpenAlexaff
Niranjan Kissoon, Cheryl Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2018
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationARDSPropensity score matchingRespiratory failureEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has supported gas exchange in children with severe respiratory failure for more than 40 years, without ECMO efficacy studies.Objectives: To compare the mortality and functional status of children with severe acute respiratory failure supported with and without ECMO.Methods: This cohort study compared ECMO-supported children to pair-matched non-ECMO-supported control subjects with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Both individual case matching and propensity score matching were used.The study sample was selected from children enrolled in the clusterrandomized RESTORE (Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure) clinical trial.Detailed demographic and daily physiologic data were used to match patients.The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality.Secondary outcomes included hospital-free days, ventilator-free days, and change in functional status at hospital discharge.Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,449 children in the RESTORE trial, 879 (35.9%) non-ECMO-supported patients with severe ARDS were eligible to match to 61 (2.5%) ECMO-supported children.When individual case matching was used (60 matched pairs), the in-hospital mortality rate at 90 days was 25% (15 of 60) for both the ECMO-supported and non-ECMO-supported children (P .0.99).With propensity score matching (61 matched pairs), the ECMO-supported in-hospital mortality rate was 15 of 61 (25%), and the non-ECMO-supported hospital mortality rate was 18 of 61 (30%) (P = 0.70).There was no difference between ECMO-supported and non-ECMO-supported patients in any secondary outcomes.Conclusions: In children with severe ARDS, our results do not demonstrate that ECMO-supported children have superior outcomes compared with non-ECMO-supported children.Definitive answers will require a rigorous multisite randomized controlled 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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1120.039

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices→French-language works237,207→