Does obesity impact on weaning from invasive ventilation: a secondary analysis of the WEAN SAFE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of obesity on outcomes of weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). METHODS: The study population consisted of patients enrolled in the WEAN SAFE study. We defined 4 groups based on body mass index (BMI), namely: Normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m²), Overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m²), Obesity Class I (BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²), and obesity classes II and III (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m²). The primary outcome was the rate of successful extubation in patients in each BMI group. Secondary outcomes included the ICU and hospital survival, and PEEP levels at time of weaning eligibility in patients in each BMI group. RESULTS: In the study population, 1728 (38.2%) were of normal weight, 1395 (30.8%) were overweight, 590 (13.1%) were class I Obesity, and 431 (9.5%) were obesity classes II and III. Patients with obesity were more likely to be female, to be a medical admission, and to have comorbidities. Patients with grade II-III obesity had lower levels of sedation, later timing of the first separation attempt, longer time to weaning success, they received more noninvasive ventilation post extubation, and they had a longer ICU stay. In contrast, weaning success, and ICU and hospital mortality rates were not different in obese patients. There was no independent relationship between obesity and weaning delay, weaning success, or with overall survival outcomes. Higher PEEP at weaning eligibility was associated with weaning failure in normal and overweight patients but not in patients with obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with obesity had a more complex and longer weaning process, but obesity per se was not independently associated with adverse weaning 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".