MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406666295 · doi:10.1164/rccm.202406-1162oc

Early versus Delayed Switching from Controlled to Assisted Ventilation: A Target Trial Emulation

2025· article· en· W4406666295 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen A. T. Reep, Evert‐Jan Wils, Lucas M. Fleuren, Alexander Breskin, Giacomo Bellani, John G. Laffey, Laurent Brochard, Tài Pham, Leo Heunks

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersEuropean Society of Intensive Care MedicineZonMwEuropean Respiratory Society
KeywordsMedicineEmulationVentilation (architecture)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale In critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, switching from controlled to assisted ventilation is a crucial milestone toward ventilator liberation. The optimal timing for switching to assisted ventilation has not been studied. Objectives Our objective was to determine whether a strategy of early compared with delayed switching affects the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and mortality. Methods We conducted a target trial emulation using the prospective, global WEAN SAFE (the WorldwidE AssessmeNt of Separation of pAtients From ventilatory assistancE) dataset. Patients were eligible for switching if they were still on controlled mechanical ventilation, were not receiving neuromuscular blockers, and had PaO2:FiO2 ratios >150 mm Hg. We compared an “early switching” strategy (switch within 1 day after reaching switching eligibility criteria) with a “delayed switching” strategy (switch 1 or more days after reaching the switching eligibility criteria). The primary outcome was the 28-day cumulative incidence of successful extubation. Secondary outcomes included 28-day and 90-day ICU discharge and ICU mortality. Measurements and Main Results A total of 1,489 patients met the switching eligibility criteria. The early-switch group had, on average, 4 additional days of being successfully extubated over the 28-day period (95% confidence interval [CI], 3–6 days; P < 0.001) compared with the delayed group, with a higher difference in cumulative incidence of successful extubation at Day 28 (7% [95% CI, 0–13%]; P = 0.04). Early switching was associated with an 11% higher cumulative incidence of ICU discharge at Day 28 (95% CI, 7–18%; P < 0.001) and an average of 7 additional days discharged from the ICU over the 90-day period (95% CI, 4–12 days; P < 0.001) compared with delayed switching. ICU mortality rates did not differ between the strategies. Conclusions Early switching from controlled to assisted ventilation is associated with shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and ICU stay compared with delayed switching.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207