MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234098593 · doi:10.3410/f.10346.467834

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Continuous positive airway pressure for treatment of postoperative hypoxemia: a randomized controlled trial.

2006· dataset· en· W4234098593 on OpenAlexaff
John G. Laffey

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2006
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoxemiaIntensive care unitMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaContext (archaeology)IntubationRandomized controlled trialIntensive careContinuous positive airway pressurePneumoniaOxygen therapyRelative riskAbdominal surgerySurgeryConfidence intervalIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Hypoxemia complicates the recovery of 30% to 50% of patients after abdominal surgery; endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation may be required in 8% to 10% of cases, increasing morbidity and mortality and prolonging intensive care unit and hospital stay.OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure compared with standard treatment in preventing the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in patients who develop acute hypoxemia after elective major abdominal surgery.DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, controlled, unblinded study with concealed allocation conducted between June 2002 and November 2003 at 15 intensive care units of the Piedmont Intensive Care Units Network in Italy.PATIENTS: Consecutive patients who developed severe hypoxemia after major elective abdominal surgery. The trial was stopped for efficacy after 209 patients had been enrolled.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive oxygen (n = 104) or oxygen plus continuous positive airway pressure (n = 105).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was incidence of endotracheal intubation; secondary end points were intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, incidence of pneumonia, infection and sepsis, and hospital mortality.RESULTS: Patients who received oxygen plus continuous positive airway pressure had a lower intubation rate (1% vs 10%; P = .005; relative risk [RR], 0.099; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.76) and had a lower occurrence rate of pneumonia (2% vs 10%, RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.88; P = .02), infection (3% vs 10%, RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.94; P = .03), and sepsis (2% vs 9%; RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.04-0.99; P = .03) than did patients treated with oxygen alone. Patients who received oxygen plus continuous positive airway pressure also spent fewer mean (SD) days in the intensive care unit (1.4 [1.6] vs 2.6 [4.2], P = .09) than patients treated with oxygen alone. The treatments did not affect the mean (SD) days that patients spent in the hospital (15 [13] vs 17 [15], respectively; P = .10). None of those treated with oxygen plus continuous positive airway pressure died in the hospital while 3 deaths occurred among those treated with oxygen alone (P = .12).CONCLUSION: Continuous positive airway pressure may decrease the incidence of endotracheal intubation and other severe complications in patients who develop hypoxemia after elective major abdominal surgery. PMID: 15687314

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.004

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→