An appraisal of respiratory system compliance in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Heterogeneous respiratory system static compliance (CRS) values and levels of hypoxemia in patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) requiring mechanical ventilation have been reported in previous small-case series or studies conducted at a national level. Methods: We designed a retrospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering from the international COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium study to comprehensively describe CRS – calculated as: tidal volume/[airway plateau pressure-positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)] – and its association with ventilatory management and outcomes of COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation (MV), admitted to intensive care units (ICU) worldwide. Results: We studied 745 patients from 22 countries, who required admission to the ICU and MV from January 14 to December 31, 2020, and presented at least one value of CRS within the first seven days of MV. Median (IQR) age was 62 (52-71), patients were predominantly males (68%) and from Europe/North and South America (88%). 28-day ICU mortality, accounting for the competing risk of being discharged within the period, was 35.6% (SE 1.7). Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that CRS (+10 mL/cm H2O) was only associated with being discharge from the ICU within 28 days (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 – 1.28, p=0.018). Conclusions: This multicentre report provides a comprehensive account of CRS in COVID-19 patients on MV. CRS measured within 48h from commencement of MV has marginal predictive value for 28-day mortality, but was associated with being discharged from ICU within the same period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".