MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417458010 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.01.25341410

Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan for the ECMO-Free Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4417458010 on OpenAlexaff
Whitney D. Gannon, Ricardo Teijeiro‐Paradis, Matthew E. Prekker, Melissa A. Vogelsong, Gary Schwartz, Mazen Odish, Nils Nickel, Sarah Bloom, Sydney J. Hansen, Vikram Fielding‐Singh, Britton Blough, Robert L. Owens, Ramón Salvador Vallès, Wren Adkisson, Bret D. Alvis, Matthew Bacchetta, Daniel Ford, Christina Jelly, Janna S. Landsperger, Kaitlyn Lingle, Christy C. Noblit, Todd W. Rice, Lorenzo Del Sorbo, John W. Stokes, Joanna L. Stollings, Grace Van Winkle, Li Wang, Brant Imhoff, Matthew S. Shotwell, Eddy Fan, Matthew W. Semler, Jonathan D. Casey

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialStatistical analysisPlan (archaeology)Clinical trialIntention-to-treat analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Take-Home Points Study Question Does a daily protocolized assessment of readiness for decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) shorten the time to decannulation? Results This manuscript describes the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the ECMO-Free Trial, a multicenter randomized trial comparing a protocolized assessment of readiness to decannulate from ECMO versus usual care. Interpretation Specifying the protocol and full statistical analysis plan before completion of enrollment increases rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of trial results. Background Decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) at the earliest, safe opportunity would be expected to improve patient outcomes. Currently, the manner in which clinicians liberate patients from V-V ECMO is highly variable. Whether performing a daily protocolized assessment of readiness for decannulation decreases the time to decannulation for patients on V-V ECMO is unknown. Research Question Does the performance of a daily protocolized assessment of readiness to decannulate from ECMO (an “ECMO-free protocol”) decrease the time to successful decannulation compared to usual care among patients receiving V-V ECMO? Study Design and Methods The ECMO-Free Trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, unblinded, parallel-group, randomized trial being conducted in 7 sites in North America. The trial compares the daily performance of an ECMO-free protocol in which patients who meet safety criteria have their sweep gas flow rate turned to 0 liters per minute (simulating the patient being “off ECMO”) to usual care among 225 adults receiving V-V ECMO. The primary outcome is the time to successful decannulation from ECMO within 60 days. The secondary outcome is the number of ECMO-free days to day 60. Enrollment began on September 7, 2022, and is expected to conclude in 2026. Interpretation The ECMO-Free Trial will provide important data on the effects of a protocolized assessment of readiness to decannulate vs usual care on the time to decannulation and other outcomes among patients receiving V-V ECMO. Specifying the protocol and statistical analysis plan before the conclusion of enrollment increases the rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of the trial. Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov ; No. NCT05486559 ; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

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)0.137
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.229
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1370.229
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.008
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.011

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
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 designRandomized 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207