Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for the low oxygen intervention for cardiac arrest injury limitation (LOGICAL) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) is uncertain and will be evaluated in the Low Oxygen Intervention for Cardiac Arrest injury Limitation (LOGICAL) trial. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plans for the LOGICAL trial. Design setting and participants: LOGICAL is a randomised clinical trial in adults in the ICU who are comatose with suspected HIE (i.e., those who have not obeyed commands following return of spontaneous circulation after a cardiac arrest where there is clinical concern about possible brain damage). The LOGICAL trial will include 1400 participants and is being conducted as a substudy of the Mega Randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU (Mega-ROX). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is survival with favourable neurological function at 180 days after randomisation as measured with the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E). A favourable neurological outcome will be defined as a GOS-E score of lower moderate disability or better (i.e. a GOS-E score of 5-8). Secondary outcomes include survival time, day 180 mortality, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, the proportion of patients discharged home, quality of life assessed at day 180 using the EQ-5D-5L, and cognitive function assessed at day 180 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-blind). Conclusions: The LOGICAL trial will provide reliable data on the impact of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy in ICU patients with suspected HIE following resuscitation from a cardiac arrest. Prepublication of the LOGICAL protocol and statistical analysis plan prior to trial conclusion will reduce the potential for outcome-reporting or analysis bias. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000518864).
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 | 0.081 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.204 | 0.042 |
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".