MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388127853 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006094

The Roles of Venopulmonary Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

2023· review· en· W4388127853 on OpenAlexaff
Maxwell A. Hockstein, Eddy Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationPulmonary embolismARDSLung transplantationPercutaneousExtracorporealCardiologyInternal medicineTransplantationIntensive care medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Concise definitive review of the use of venopulmonary arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-PA ECMO) support in patients with cardiopulmonary failure. DATA SOURCES: Original investigations identified through a PubMed search with search terms "percutaneous right ventricular assist device," "oxy-RVAD," "V-PA ECMO," and "veno-pulmonary arterial ECMO" were reviewed and evaluated for relevance. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that included more than three patients supported with V-PA ECMO were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Clinically relevant data from included studies, including patient-important outcomes, were summarized and discussed. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified four groups of patients where V-PA ECMO has been studied: acute respiratory distress syndrome, right ventricular dysfunction after left ventricular assist device placement, bridge to lung transplantation, and pulmonary embolism. Most identified works are small, single center, and retrospective in nature, precluding definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of V-PA ECMO. There have been no clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of V-PA ECMO for any indication. CONCLUSIONS: V-PA ECMO is a promising form of extracorporeal support for patients with right ventricular dysfunction. Future work should focus on identifying the optimal timing and populations for the use of V-PA 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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207