MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408686873 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093853

Liberation from mechanical ventilation using Extubation Advisor Decision Support (LEADS): protocol for a multicentre pilot trial

2025· article· en· W4408686873 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Karen E. A. Burns, J Allan, Emma Lee, Marlene Santos-Taylor, Phyllis Kay, Pamela Greco, H. Every, Owen Mooney, Maged Tanios, Edmund Tan, Christophe L. Herry, Nathan Scales, Audrey Gouskos, Alexandre Tran, Akshai Iyengar, David M. Maslove, Emmanuel Charbonney, Asher A. Mendelson, François Lellouche, François Lamontagne, Damon C. Scales, Patrick Archambault, Alexis F. Turgeon, Andrew Seely, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCégep de LévisSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversité LavalManitoba HealthUniversité de MontréalSunnybrook HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalToronto Public HealthMuscular Dystrophy CanadaCARE CanadaUniversity of WinnipegUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationSpontaneous breathing trialRandomized controlled trialPopulationIntensive care unitClinical trialIntensive care medicineCritically illProtocol (science)Emergency medicineSurgeryAlternative medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Timely successful liberation from invasive ventilation has the potential to minimise critically ill patients' exposure to invasive ventilation, save costs and improve outcomes; yet no trials have evaluated strategies to better inform extubation decision-making. The Liberation from mechanical ventilation using Extubation Advisor (EA) Decision Support (LEADS) Pilot Trial will assess the feasibility of a trial of a novel extubation decision support tool on feasibility metrics. The primary feasibility outcome will reflect our ability to recruit the desired population. Secondary feasibility outcomes will assess rates of (1) consent, (2) randomisation, (3) intervention adherence, (4) bidirectional crossovers and the (5) completeness of clinical outcomes collected. We will also evaluate physicians' perceptions of the usefulness of the EA tool and measure costs related to EA implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include critically ill adults who are invasively ventilated for ≥48 hours and who are ready to undergo a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) with a view to extubation. Patients in the intervention arm will undergo an EA assessment that measures respiratory rate variability to derive an estimate of extubation readiness. Treating clinicians (respiratory therapists, attending physicians and intensive care unit fellows) will receive an EA report for each SBT conducted. The EA report will assist, rather than direct, extubation decision-making. Patients in the control arm will receive standard care. SBTs will be directed by clinicians, using current best evidence, without EA assessments or reports. We aim to recruit 1 to 2 patients/month in approximately 10 centres, and to achieve >75% consent rate, >95% randomisation among consented patients, >80% of EA reports generated and delivered (intervention arm), <10% crossovers (both arms) and >90% of patients with complete clinical outcomes. We will also report physician point-of-care perceptions of the usefulness of the EA tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The LEADS Pilot Trial is approved by the Research Ethics Boards of all participating centres and Clinical Trials Ontario (4008). We will disseminate the LEADS trial findings through conference presentations and publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05506904. PROTOCOL VERSION: 24 April 2024.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.017

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→