Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to examine the current state of the evidence, including several recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, to determine if proportional modes of ventilation have the potential to hasten weaning from mechanical ventilation for adult critically ill patients, compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV), the current standard of care during the recovery and weaning phases of mechanical ventilation. RECENT FINDINGS: Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) are two commercially available proportional modes that have been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although several feasibility studies were not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes, emerging evidence suggests that both PAV and NAVA may reduce duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and hospital mortality compared to PSV, as shown in some small, primarily single-centre studies. Recent meta-analyses suggest that PAV shortens duration of mechanical ventilation and improves weaning success rate, and NAVA may reduce ICU and hospital mortality. SUMMARY: The current state of the evidence suggests that proportional modes may hasten weaning from mechanical ventilation, but larger, multicentre RCTS are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".