Prone position effect in intensive care patients with SARS-COV-2 pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ventilation in the prone position (PP) has been used for decades in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and is associated with a reduction in mortality rate. Its application has been extended to patients with SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia and is recommended by the main international organizations. The objective is to evaluate the effects of PP on the outcomes of patients with SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia admitted to a multipurpose intensive care unit. This is a quantitative, quasi-experimental, single-group, longitudinal and retrospective study. Data were collected based on clinical records. Data were processed using SPSS (version 26.0). PP significantly increased oxygenation in patients with SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia, with a mean increase of 21.27% between the PaO2/FiO2ratio before and after the PP. However, its effectiveness was inversely proportional to the number of cycles performed and the timing of orotracheal intubation. PP improves oxygenation in patients with SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia. However, multiple PP sessions are not beneficial, as this procedure is no longer effective after the fourth cycle. This study thus contributes to better management in the approach of critically ill patients with SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".