The Use of the Oxygenation Stretch Index to Predict Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19 ARDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In ARDS caused by COVID-19 pneumonia, appropriate adjustment of physiologic parameters based on lung stretch or oxygenation may optimize the ventilatory strategy. This study aims to describe the prognostic performance on 60-d mortality of single and composite respiratory variables in subjects with COVID-19 ARDS who are on mechanical ventilation with a lung-protective strategy, including the oxygenation stretch index combining oxygenation and driving pressure (ΔP). METHODS: This single-center observational cohort study enrolled 166 subjects on mechanical ventilation and diagnosed with COVID-19 ARDS. We evaluated their clinical and physiologic characteristics. The primary study outcome was 60-d mortality. Prognostic factors were evaluated through receiver operating characteristic analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression model, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: Mortality at day 60 was 18.1%, and hospital mortality was 22.9%. Oxygenation, ΔP, and composite variables were tested: oxygenation stretch index ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] divided by ΔP) and ΔP × 4 + breathing frequency (f) (ΔP × 4 + f). At both day 1 and day 2 after inclusion, the oxygenation stretch index had the best area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (oxygenation stretch index on day 1 0.76 (95% CI 0.67-0.84) and on day 2 0.83 (95% CI 0.76-0.91) to predict 60-d mortality, although without significant difference from other indexes. In multivariable Cox regression, ΔP, [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text], ΔP × 4 + f, and oxygenation stretch index were all associated with 60-d mortality. When dichotomizing the variables, ΔP ≥ 14, [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] ≤ 152 mm Hg, ΔP × 4 + f ≥ 80, and oxygenation stretch index < 7.7 showed lower 60-d survival probability. At day 2, after optimization of ventilatory settings, the subjects who persisted with the worse cutoff values for the oxygenation stretch index showed a lower probability of survival at 60 d compared with day 1; this was not the case for other parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The oxygenation stretch index, which combines [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] and ΔP, is associated with mortality and may be useful to predict clinical outcomes in COVID-19 ARDS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".