MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390145122 · doi:10.1111/aas.14366

Higher versus lower oxygenation targets in adult <scp>ICU</scp> patients: A rapid practice guideline

2023· article· en· W4390145122 on OpenAlexaff
Morten Hylander Møller, Anders Granholm, Zainab Al Duhailib, Waleed Alhazzani, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, Simon Oczkowski, Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Fredrik Sjövall, Ethan Butler, Fernando G. Zampieri, Rob Mac Sweeney, Lennie Derde, Ally Ruzycki‐Chadwick, Mervyn Mer, Karen E. A. Burns, Begüm Ergan, Abdulrahman Al‐Fares, Michael W. Sjoding, Thomas S. Valley, Bodil Steen Rasmussen, Olav Lilleholt Schjørring, Hallie C. Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of AlbertaPopulation Health Research InstituteAlberta Health ServicesMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamilton General HospitalImpact
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineOxygenationIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM‐RPG) was to provide evidence‐based clinical guidance about the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The guideline panel comprised 27 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and used the Evidence‐to‐Decision framework to generate recommendations. A recently published updated systematic review and meta‐analysis constituted the evidence base. Through teleconferences and web‐based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The updated systematic review and meta‐analysis included data from 17 randomized clinical trials with 10,248 participants. There was little to no difference between the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for all outcomes with available data, including all‐cause mortality, serious adverse events, stroke, functional outcomes, cognition, and health‐related quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). The panel felt that values and preferences, costs and resources, and equity favored the use of lower oxygenation targets. The ICM‐RPG panel issued one conditional recommendation against the use of higher oxygenation targets: “We suggest against the routine use of higher oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Remark: an oxygenation target of SpO2 88%–92% or PaO2 8 kPa/60 mmHg is relevant and safe for most adult ICU patients.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0120.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207