Evidence-Based Considerations for the Design of an Open-Source Ventilator: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To inform the design of open-source ventilators, we performed a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to consolidate the evidence on mechanical ventilation strategies that result in improved patient-important outcomes for acute hypoxic respiratory failure. DATA SOURCES: We developed a search strategy to identify relevant CPGs from Ovid Medline, Ovid Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Mendeley, and Google scholar from 2010 to February 17, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Using a two-step screening process with two independent reviewers, we included CPGs that made recommendations on mechanical ventilation strategies of interest. Guidelines that reported at least one recommendation about mechanical ventilation in ICU patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure were included. DATA EXTRACTION: From the 13 eligible guidelines, we collected data on country, aim, patient population, impact on morbidity and mortality (effect size and CIs), recommendations, strength of Recommendation (as per Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations), and details of supporting evidence base. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified three ventilation strategies that confer a mortality and morbidity benefit for ventilated patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure: low-tidal volume ventilation, plateau pressures of less than 30 cm H2O, and higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). These moderate-to-strong recommendations were based on moderate-to-high certainty in evidence. We identified several other recommendations with no or minimal certainty in evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review of international CPGs identified no recommendations favoring specific mode of ventilation and three ventilation strategies that confer mortality and morbidity benefits, backed by moderate-to-strong evidence. Ventilator design teams must include the ability to consistently provide and measure low-tidal volume ventilation, plateau pressures of less than 30 cm H2O, and higher PEEP into their designs. Based on our findings, we provide the first public framework for open-source ventilator design.
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 | 0.325 | 0.635 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".