EFECTIVIDAD DE LA UTILIZACIÓN DE LA CÁNULA NASAL DE ALTO FLUJO EN PERSONAS ADULTAS AFECTADAS CON INSUFICIENCIA RESPIRATORIA AGUDA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To systematize the evidence regarding the results of the use of the high-flow nasal cannula in adults with acute respiratory failure.Materials and methods: The design of the research was a systematic review.The population was 19 articles, which, through a selection process based on years of seniority, impact of the journal and grade of evidence, a sample of 10 articles was selected.We consulted databases of scientific relevance in the field of health.Results: 3/10 (30%) studies conducted in 2 in the US and 1 in Canada, 3/10 (30%) were executed in Australia, 1/10 (10%) in Europe (United Kingdom) and the rest 3/10 (30%) included in Asian .In addition, 8/10 (80%) of studies were systematically reviewed, while 2/10 (20%) were cross-sectional design studies.8/10 (80%) of the studies obtained favorable significant evidence, while in 2/10 (20%) the evidence was not so significant that more studies were required to evaluate the effectiveness.Conclusions:There is evidence of the effectiveness of the use of high-flow nasal cannula in affected adults with acute respiratory failure.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".