MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385269561 · doi:10.1136/thorax-2023-220262

Estimating the attributable fraction of mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome to inform enrichment in future randomised clinical trials

2023· article· en· W4385269561 on OpenAlexafffund
Rohit Saha, Tài Pham, Pratik Sinha, Manoj V. Maddali, Giacomo Bellani, Eddy Fan, Charlotte Summers, Abdel Douiri, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Carolyn S. Calfee, John G. Laffey, Daniel F. McAuley, Manu Shankar‐Hari

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteGenentechMedical Research CouncilEuropean Society of Intensive Care MedicineNational Institutes of HealthScience Foundation IrelandNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGlaxoSmithKlineSt. Michael's Hospital FoundationUniversità degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineAcute respiratory distressClinical trialIntensive care medicineRandomized controlled trialRespiratory distressFraction (chemistry)Internal medicineSurgeryLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Efficiency of randomised clinical trials of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) depends on the fraction of deaths attributable to ARDS (AF ARDS ) to which interventions are targeted. Estimates of AF ARDS in subpopulations of ARDS could improve design of ARDS trials. Methods We performed a matched case-control study using the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE cohort. Primary outcome was intensive care unit mortality. We used nearest neighbour propensity score matching without replacement to match ARDS to non-ARDS populations. We derived two separate AF ARDS estimates by matching patients with ARDS to patients with non-acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (non-AHRF) and to patients with AHRF with unilateral infiltrates only (AHRF-UL). We also estimated AF ARDS in subgroups based on severity of hypoxaemia, number of lung quadrants involved and hyperinflammatory versus hypoinflammatory phenotypes. Additionally, we derived AF AHRF estimates by matching patients with AHRF to non-AHRF controls, and AF AHRF-UL estimates by matching patients with AHRF-UL to non-AHRF controls. Results Estimated AF ARDS was 20.9% (95% CI 10.5% to 31.4%) when compared with AHRF-UL controls and 38.0% (95% CI 34.4% to 41.6%) compared with non-AHRF controls. Within subgroups, estimates for AF ARDS compared with AHRF-UL controls were highest in patients with severe hypoxaemia (41.1% (95% CI 25.2% to 57.1%)), in those with four quadrant involvement on chest radiography (28.9% (95% CI 13.4% to 44.3%)) and in the hyperinflammatory subphenotype (26.8% (95% CI 6.9% to 46.7%)). Estimated AF AHRF was 33.8% (95% CI 30.5% to 37.1%) compared with non-AHRF controls. Estimated AF AHRF-UL was 21.3% (95% CI 312.8% to 29.7%) compared with non-AHRF controls. Conclusions Overall AF ARDS mean values were between 20.9% and 38.0%, with higher AF ARDS seen with severe hypoxaemia, four quadrant involvement on chest radiography and hyperinflammatory 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 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)0.009
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 score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207