MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293316168 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2208686

Oxygen Targets in Comatose Survivors of Cardiac Arrest

2022· article· en· W4293316168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henrik Schmidt, Jesper Kjærgaard, Christian Hassager, Simon Mølstrøm, Johannes Grand, Britt Borregaard, Laust Emil Roelsgaard Obling, Søren Venø, Laura Sarkisian, Dmitry Mamaev, Lisette Okkels Jensen, Benjamin Nyholm, Dan Eik Høfsten, Jakob Josiassen, Jakob Hartvig Thomsen, Jens Jakob Thune, Matias Greve Lindholm, M Meyer, Matilde Winther‐Jensen, Marc Sørensen, Martin Frydland, Rasmus Paulin Beske, Ruth Frikke‐Schmidt, Sebastian Wiberg, Søren Boesgaard, Vibeke Lind Jørgensen, Jacob Eifer Møller

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovo Nordisk FondenLundbeckfonden
KeywordsOxygenMedicineIntensive care medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The appropriate oxygenation target for mechanical ventilation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown. METHODS: of 13 to 14 kPa (98 to 105 mm Hg); patients were also assigned to one of two blood-pressure targets (reported separately). The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with severe disability or coma (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] of 3 or 4; categories range from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more severe disability), whichever occurred first within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes were neuron-specific enolase levels at 48 hours, death from any cause, the score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (ranging from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability), the score on the modified Rankin scale (ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability), and the CPC at 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 789 patients underwent randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 126 of 394 patients (32.0%) in the restrictive-target group and in 134 of 395 patients (33.9%) in the liberal-target group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.21; P = 0.69). At 90 days, death had occurred in 113 patients (28.7%) in the restrictive-target group and in 123 (31.1%) in the liberal-target group. On the CPC, the median category was 1 in the two groups; on the modified Rankin scale, the median score was 2 in the restrictive-target group and 1 in the liberal-target group; and on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the median score was 27 in the two groups. At 48 hours, the median neuron-specific enolase level was 17 μg per liter in the restrictive-target group and 18 μg per liter in the liberal-target group. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting of a restrictive or liberal oxygenation strategy in comatose patients after resuscitation for cardiac arrest resulted in a similar incidence of death or severe disability or coma. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation; BOX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141099.).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations247
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207