Effect of immediate initiation of invasive ventilation on mortality in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a target trial emulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Invasive ventilation is a fundamental treatment in intensive care but its precise timing is difficult to determine. This study aims at assessing the effect of initiating invasive ventilation versus waiting, in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure without immediate reason for intubation on one-year mortality. Methods Emulation of a target trial to estimate the benefit of immediately initiating invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure, versus waiting, among patients within the first 48-h of hypoxemia. The eligible population included non-intubated patients with SpO 2 /FiO 2 ≤ 200 and SpO 2 ≤ 97%. The target trial was emulated using a single-center database (MIMIC-IV) which contains granular information about clinical status. The hourly probability to receive mechanical ventilation was continuously estimated. The hazard ratios for the primary outcome, one-year mortality, and the secondary outcome, 30-day mortality, were estimated using weighted Cox models with stabilized inverse probability weights used to adjust for measured confounding. Results 2996 Patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria of whom 792 were intubated within 48 h. Among the non-invasive support devices, the use of oxygen through facemask was the most common (75%). Compared to patients with the same probability of intubation but who were not intubated, intubation decreased the hazard of dying for the first year after ICU admission HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68–0.96, p = 0.018). Intubation was associated with a 30-day mortality HR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.64–0.99, p = 0.046). Conclusion The initiation of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure reduced the hazard of dying in this emulation of a target trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".