MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296847193 · doi:10.1164/rccm.202206-1092oc

Do Thresholds for Invasive Ventilation in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Exist? A Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4296847193 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher J. Yarnell, Alistair E. W. Johnson, Tariq A. Dam, Annemijn H. Jonkman, Kuan Liu, Hannah Wunsch, Laurent Brochard, Leo Anthony Celi, Harm‐Jan de Grooth, Paul Elbers, Sangeeta Mehta, Laveena Munshi, Robert Fowler, Lillian Sung, George Tomlinson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalSinai Health SystemSunnybrook Health Science CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenHealth Sciences CentreInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCohortVentilation (architecture)Respiratory failureCohort studyRespiratory systemNoninvasive ventilationIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineMechanical ventilationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Invasive ventilation is a significant event for patients with respiratory failure. Physiologic thresholds standardize the use of invasive ventilation in clinical trials, but it is unknown whether thresholds prompt invasive ventilation in clinical practice. Objectives To measure, in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, the probability of invasive ventilation within 3 hours after meeting physiologic thresholds. Methods We studied patients admitted to intensive care receiving Fi O2 of 0.4 or more via nonrebreather mask, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or high-flow nasal cannula, using data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)–IV database (2008–2019) and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb) (2003–2016). We evaluated 17 thresholds, including the ratio of arterial to inspired oxygen, the ratio of saturation to inspired oxygen ratio, composite scores, and criteria from randomized trials. We report the probability of invasive ventilation within 3 hours of meeting each threshold and its association with covariates using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Measurements and Main Results We studied 4,726 patients (3,365 from MIMIC, 1,361 from AmsterdamUMCdb). Invasive ventilation occurred in 28% (1,320). In MIMIC, the highest probability of invasive ventilation within 3 hours of meeting a threshold was 20%, after meeting prespecified neurologic or respiratory criteria while on vasopressors, and 19%, after a ratio of arterial to inspired oxygen of <80 mm Hg. In AmsterdamUMCdb, the highest probability was 34%, after vasopressor initiation, and 25%, after a ratio of saturation to inspired oxygen of <90. The probability after meeting the threshold from randomized trials was 9% (MIMIC) and 13% (AmsterdamUMCdb). In MIMIC, a race/ethnicity of Black (OR, 0.75; 95% CrI, 0.57–0.96) or Asian (OR, 0.6; 95% CrI, 0.35–0.95) compared with White was associated with decreased probability of invasive ventilation after meeting a threshold. Conclusions The probability of invasive ventilation within 3 hours of meeting physiologic thresholds was low and associated with patient race/ethnicity.

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)0.001
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 score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207