MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387312259 · doi:10.1155/2023/8691539

Noninvasive Home Mechanical Ventilation for Stable Hypercapnic COPD: A Clinical Respiratory Review from Canadian Perspectives

2023· review· en· W4387312259 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Jen, Colin Ellis, Marta Kamińska, Jeremy Road, Najib Ayas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDHypercapniaIntensive care medicineContext (archaeology)Pulmonary diseaseNoninvasive ventilationVentilation (architecture)Clinical trialMechanical ventilationRespiratory systemAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute short-term noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypercapnic respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has well-established benefits; however, the role of long-term home NIV remains controversial. In the past decade, studies utilizing aggressive NIV settings to maximally reduce carbon dioxide levels (PaCO2) have resulted in several positive clinical trials and led to updated guidelines on home NIV for stable hypercapnic COPD patients. This clinical respiratory review discusses the high-intensity NIV approach, summarizes recent key trials and guidelines pertaining to home NIV in COPD, and considers key clinical questions for future research and application in the Canadian context. With recent evidence and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) guidelines supporting the use of NIV in carefully selected COPD patients with persistent daytime hypercapnia, we believe it is time to reconsider our approach.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.226 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207