The pediatric mechanical ventilation in Canada (PeMViC) study: A Delphi survey of pediatric mechanical ventilation practices by Canadian respiratory therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gap in knowledge for pediatric mechanical ventilation (MV) management makes practice standardization difficult. The European Society for Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) was the first to establish consensus recommendations on pediatric MV management. In Canada, respiratory therapists (RTs) have a large role in MV management, but do not exist in Europe. The purpose was to determine Canadian RTs??? recommendations on common pediatric MV management. \nAn e-Delphi study included n=56 participants from 15 Canadian pediatric facilities. All statements achieved consensus and this guideline consists of 59 recommendations, organized into 10 subsections: Non-invasive ventilation; tidal volumes and inspiratory pressures; respiratory rate and inspiratory time; PEEP and FiO2; Advanced Mechanical Ventilation; Weaning; Physiologic Targets; Monitoring; General MV practice and Equipment adjuncts. \nThese commonly practiced pediatric MV techniques by RTs may be used as a standard for future clinical practice and studies to understand their clinical impact in critically ill children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".