MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412931078 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006797

Association of Breathing Effort With Survival in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2025· article· en· W4412931078 on OpenAlexaff
F. Gómez, Andrea Castellví-Font, Víctor Boutonnet, Andrés Parrilla-Gómez, Marta Antolín Terreros, Cristina Mestre Somoza, Paola Pratsobrerroca de la Rubia, Eva Martín-López, Santiago Marco, Olimpia Festa, Laurent Brochard, Ewan C. Goligher, Joan Ramón Masclans Enviz

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSMechanical ventilationSpontaneous breathing trialVentilation (architecture)Respiratory distressIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is crucial for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) management, but mortality remains high. While spontaneous breathing is key to weaning, excessive respiratory effort may injure the lung and diaphragm. Most existing data on respiratory effort during IMV are based on brief periods of observation, potentially underestimating the burden of inappropriate efforts. This study aims to characterize the evolution of respiratory effort over time in ARDS patients and its relation to survival. We hypothesized that nonsurvivors would spend a greater proportion of time in the high-effort range during the active breathing phase compared with survivors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: In this prospective cohort study, we continuously recorded airway pressure, flow, esophageal, and gastric pressures in ARDS patients on mechanical ventilation during 7 days after the onset of spontaneous breathing. We analyzed physiologic respiratory effort variables, focusing on the proportion of time spent within defined effort ranges, and compared these data between ICU survivors and nonsurvivors. Statistical analysis was conducted using variance weighted methods to account for variability in the number of respiratory cycles analyzed per patient. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT06490523. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1,485,405 respiratory cycles were analyzed from 26 ARDS patients (19 survivors, seven nonsurvivors). Nonsurvivors spent significantly more time in high effort (12% vs. 3%; p = 0.006). In contrast, survivors spent more time in the moderate-effort range (50% vs. 5%; p < 0.001). The time spend with high dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (> 25 cm H 2 O) was also significantly different between groups (32% survivors vs. 74% nonsurvivors; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who die of ARDS are more likely to be exposed to high respiratory effort for prolonged periods of time compared with survivors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207