MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Awake Prone Positioning in Adults With COVID-19

2025· review· en· W4408290089 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineIntubationIntensive care unitOdds ratioMechanical ventilationLogistic regressionRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The impact of awake prone positioning (APP) on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the association of APP with improved clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and AHRF, and to identify potential effect modifiers. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through August 1, 2024. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining APP in adults with COVID-19 and AHRF that reported intubation rate or mortality were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual participant data (IPD) were extracted according to PRISMA-IPD guidelines. For binary outcomes, logistic regression was used and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs were reported, while for continuous outcomes, linear regression was used and mean difference (MD) and 95% CIs were reported. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival without intubation. Secondary outcomes included intubation, mortality, death without intubation, death after intubation, escalation of respiratory support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, time from enrollment to intubation and death, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, and hospital and ICU lengths of stay. Results: A total of 14 RCTs involving 3019 patients were included; 1542 patients in the APP group (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [14.1] years; 1048 male [68.0%]) and 1477 in the control group (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [14.1] years; 979 male [66.3%]). APP improved survival without intubation (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.20-1.68), and it reduced the risk of intubation (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84) and hospital mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95). APP also extended the time from enrollment to intubation (MD, 0.93 days; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.42 days). In exploratory subgroup analyses, improved survival without intubation was observed in patients younger than age 68 years, as well as in patients with a body mass index of 26 to 30, early implementation of APP (ie, less than 1 day from hospitalization), a pulse saturation to inhaled oxygen fraction ratio of 155 to 232, respiratory rate of 20 to 26 breaths per minute (bpm), and those receiving advanced respiratory support at enrollment. However, none of the subgroups had significant interaction with APP treatment. APP duration 10 or more hours/d within the first 3 days was associated with increased survival without intubation (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.37-2.49). Conclusions and Relevance: This IPD meta-analysis found that in adults with COVID-19 and AHRF, APP was associated with increased survival without intubation and with reduced risks of intubation and mortality, including death after intubation. Prolonged APP duration (10 or more hours/d) was associated with better outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.334 · 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