MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944163570 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/d7ewx

Incidence and Predictors of Failed Weaning on Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Life Support (VA-ECLS): A Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· other· en· W6944163570 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationRetrospective cohort studyWeaningIncidence (geometry)Life supportExtracorporealCohort studyCardiogenic shock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venoarterial membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a form of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) that provides mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and extracorporeal gas exchange in patients who are suffering from cardiac and respiratory failure. The primary indications for VA-ECMO include cardiogenic shock, resulting from either an acute event (i.e. myocardial infarction) or worsening of chronic cardiomyopathy processes, or cardiac arrest refractory to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Broadly, VA-ECMO should be considered for patients with conditions which are refractory to conventional medical management. Formal weaning trials, performed by sequentially reducing the circuit flow, are necessary to test the heart’s ability to maintain circulation without VA-ECMO support. Timely weaning of VA-ECMO is necessary as complication rates increase significantly with the duration of support. The primary objectives of this retrospective cohort study are: 1. To determine the current rate of successful VA-ECMO weaning, and determine if implementing a VA-ECMO weaning protocol will improve incidence of successful weaning and reduce days spent on VA-ECMO. 2. To determine the factors associated with failed and successful weaning from VA-ECMO The secondary objectives of this study are: 1. To determine the factors associated with successful wean and risk factors for failed weaning. 2. To examine the outcomes of patients on VA-ECMO (30 day survival, complications) as it relates to their destination (bridge to transplant, or recovery) and location of initial cannulation. This will be a single center retrospective cohort study of patients who were placed on VA-ECLS support between Jan 2020-May 2025. This start date was chosen as it was the initiation of electronic medical records at St. Paul’s Hospital. This will include adult patients whose indications for VA-ECMO or external ventricular support included: Cardiogenic shock, in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), post cardiotomy/open heart surgery (will be analyzed separately). Patients who were placed on VA-ECMO, external LVAD or biventricular VAD (BIVAD) for out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are excluded.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207