A contemporaneous comparison of functional recovery in ECMO and non-ECMO survivors of acute respiratory failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Previous work has described impaired long-term functional recovery in survivors of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) including patients who were managed on ECMO. Aims: We sought to determine whether the functional recovery of patients with AHRF managed with veno-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO) differs from patients who did not receive ECMO. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study of adults cannulated for VV-ECMO or admitted to the ICU for AHRF. Enrolled patients presented to ICU follow-up clinic between April 2020 and January 2023. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), PCL-5, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), PFTs, and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) were obtained at follow-up. Results: Sixty-four patients were included in this analysis, 34 received VV-ECMO and 30 did not (non-ECMO). ECMO patients were younger (35 v. 50 years, p<0.01), had a higher SOFA score (6 v. 4, p<0.01) and were less likely to have COVID-19 (58 v. 90%, p<0.01). ECMO patients had a significantly longer median duration of hospitalization (46 v. 22 days, p<0.01), ICU stay (29 v. 14 days, p<0.01), and mechanical ventilation (21 v. 12 days, p <0.04). At follow-up, there was no difference in HADS, PCL-5, or MOCA between the ECMO and non-ECMO group. There were no significant differences in pulmonary function tests or 6MWT when comparing the ECMO to non-ECMO patients after adjusting for potential confounders. This remained true in a subgroup analysis of patients with COVID-19. Conclusion: Potentially relevant to resource allocation and prognostication, we found no difference in functional recovery when comparing AHRF patients managed with and without VV-ECMO.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".