Prone positioning during CPAP therapy in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: a concise clinical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia threatened to overwhelm intensive care units. To reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), clinicians tried noninvasive strategies to manage ARF, including the use of awake prone positioning (PP) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). In this article, we review the patho-physiologic rationale, clinical effectiveness and practical issues of the use of PP during CPAP in non-intubated, spontaneously breathing patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with ARF. Use of PP during CPAP appears to be safe and feasible and may have a lower rate of adverse events compared to IMV. A better response to PP is observed among patients in early phases of acute respiratory distress syndrome. While PP during CPAP may improve oxygenation, the impact on the need for intubation and mortality remains unclear. It is possible to speculate on the role of PP during CPAP in terms of improvement of ventilation mechanics and reduction of strain stress.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".