Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterised by a profound deterioration in systemic oxygenation or ventilation, or both, despite supportive respiratory therapy. ARDS is an acute and progressive respiratory disease of a non-cardiac cause that is associated with progressively diffuse bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, reduced pulmonary compliance, and hypoxaemia. The main causes of ARDS include direct lung injury (e.g., pneumonia, gastric acid aspiration) or indirect lung injury (e.g., sepsis, pancreatitis, massive blood transfusion, non-thoracic trauma). Sepsis and pneumonia account for about 60% of cases. Between one third and one half of people with ARDS die from the disease, but mortality depends on the underlying cause. Some survivors have long-term respiratory or cognitive problems. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to December 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 20 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: corticosteroids, low tidal-volume mechanical ventilation, nitric oxide, prone position, and protective ventilation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.004 |
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".