A vital parameter? Systematic review of spirometry in evaluation for intensive care unit admission and intubation and ventilation for Guillain-Barré syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission for intubation and ventilation (I + V). The means to predict which patients will require I + V include spirometry measures. The aims of this study were to determine, for adult patients with GBS, how effectively different spirometry parameter thresholds predict the need for ICU admission and the requirement for I + V; and what effects these different parameter thresholds have on GBS patient outcomes. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted of the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO. RESULTS: Initial searches returned 1011 results, of which 8 fulfilled inclusion criteria. All included studies were observational in nature. Multiple studies suggest that a vital capacity below 60% of predicted value on admission is associated with the need for eventual I + V. No included studies evaluated peak expiratory flow rate, or interventions with different thresholds for ICU or I + V. CONCLUSIONS: There is a relationship between vital capacity and the need for I + V. However, there is limited evidence supporting specific thresholds for I + V. In addition to evaluating these factors, future research may evaluate the effect of different patient characteristics, including clinical presentation, weight, age, and respiratory comorbidities, on the effectiveness of spirometry parameters in the prediction of the need for I + V.
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 | 0.014 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".