MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244873342 · doi:10.1186/s13613-018-0424-4

Hypoxemia in the ICU: prevalence, treatment, and outcome

2018· article· en· W4244873342 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSociété de Réanimation de Langue FrançaiseCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaIntensive Care Society
KeywordsMedicineHypoxemiaARDSAnesthesiologyIntensive care unitOxygen therapyMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)Respiratory distressAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Information is limited regarding the prevalence, management, and outcome of hypoxemia among intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We assessed the prevalence and severity of hypoxemia in ICU patients and analyzed the management and outcomes of hypoxemic patients. Methods This is a multinational, multicenter, 1-day point prevalence study in 117 ICUs during the spring of 2016. All patients hospitalized in an ICU on the day of the study could be enrolled. Hypoxemia was defined as a PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio ≤ 300 mmHg and classified as mild (PaO 2 /FiO 2 between 300 and 201), moderate (PaO 2 /FiO 2 between 200 and 101), and severe (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ≤ 100 mmHg). Results Of 1604 patients included, 859 (54%, 95% CI 51–56%) were hypoxemic, 51% with mild ( n = 440), 40% with moderate ( n = 345), and 9% ( n = 74) with severe hypoxemia. Among hypoxemic patients, 61% ( n = 525) were treated with invasive ventilation, 10% ( n = 84) with non-invasive ventilation, 5% ( n = 45) with high-flow oxygen therapy, 22% ( n = 191) with standard oxygen, and 1.6% ( n = 14) did not receive oxygen. Protective ventilation was widely used in invasively ventilated patients. Twenty-one percent of hypoxemic patients ( n = 178) met criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) including 65 patients (37%) with mild, 82 (46%) with moderate, and 31 (17%) with severe ARDS. ICU mortality was 27% in hypoxemic patients and significantly differed according to severity: 21% in mild, 26% in moderate, and 50% in patients with severe hypoxemia, p < 0.001. Multivariate Cox regression identified moderate and severe hypoxemia as independent factors of ICU mortality compared to mild hypoxemia (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38 [1.00–1.90] and 2.65 [1.69–4.15], respectively). Conclusions Hypoxemia affected more than half of ICU patients in this 1-day point prevalence study, but only 21% of patients had ARDS criteria. Severity of hypoxemia was an independent risk factor of mortality among hypoxemic patients. Trial registration NCT 02722031

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations85
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Intensive CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207