Heterogeneous Treatment Effects of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Oscillation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Treated Early (OSCILLATE) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate whether different subgroups of adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) respond differently to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). DESIGN: The Oscillation for ARDS Treated Early (OSCILLATE) trial was a randomized controlled trial of HFOV vs. conventional ventilation that found an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) with HFOV. In a post hoc analysis, we applied three different approaches to evaluate heterogeneity of treatment effect for in-hospital mortality: 1) subgroup analyses based on baseline Pao 2:Fio 2 ratio and oxygenation index (OI); 2) a risk-based approach using a multivariable outcome prediction model; and 3) a clustering approach via multivariable latent class analysis. We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess for interaction. SETTING: Thirty-nine ICUs, five countries. SUBJECTS: Five hundred forty-eight adults with moderate to severe ARDS. INTERVENTIONS: HFOV vs. conventional mechanical ventilation with low tidal volume and higher positive end-expiratory pressure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The effect of HFOV on in-hospital mortality was consistent across categories of Pao 2:Fio 2 ratio (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.04; 95% CI, 1.32–3.17 and aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.49–2.75 for groups with Pao 2:Fio 2 above or equal to 80, vs. below 80, respectively; interaction p = 0.23) and OI (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.67–4.70; aOR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.44–7.09; aOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.82–3.65; and aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.61–2.90 for quartiles of baseline OI, respectively; interaction p = 0.44). Point estimates for the effect of HFOV were consistent across risk categories (aOR, 2.44; 95% CI, 0.40–14.83; aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.75–3.85; and aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.59–7.54 for the lowest, moderate, and highest risk categories, respectively; interaction p = 0.32). Using a clustering approach, point estimates for HFOV were also consistent (cluster 1: aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15–3.00 and cluster 2: aOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 0.91–3.38; interaction p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify heterogeneity in the effect of HFOV across different subgroups of patients with ARDS.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".