Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Candidacy Decisions: An Argument for a Process-Based Longitudinal Approach*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are all children extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) candidates? Navigating ECMO decisions represents an enormous challenge in pediatric critical care. ECMO cannulation should not be a default option as it will not confer benefit for "all" critically ill children; however, "all" children deserve well-considered decisions surrounding their ECMO candidacy. The complexity of the decision demands a systematic, "well-reasoned" and "dynamic" approach. Due to clinical urgency, this standard cannot always be met prior to initiation of ECMO. We challenge the paradigm of "candidacy" as a singular decision that must be defined prior to ECMO initiation. Rather, the determination as to whether ECMO is in the patient's best interest is applicable regardless of cannulation status. The priority should be on collaborative, interdisciplinary decision-making processes aligned with principles of transparency, relevant reasoning, accountability, review, and appeal. To ensure a robust process, it should not be temporally constrained by cannulation status. We advocate that this approach will decrease both the risk of not initiating ECMO in a patient who will benefit and the risk of prolonged, nonbeneficial support. We conclude that to ensure fair decisions are made in a patient's best interest, organizations should develop procedurally fair processes for ECMO decision-making that are not tied to a particular time point and are revisited along the management trajectory.
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 | 0.256 | 0.319 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".