Ventilation and Weaning Practices in Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a one-day prospective point prevalence design, this study aimed to characterise the current practice of mechanical ventilation and weaning in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. During 2005, a bi-national one-day survey of 55 intensive care units found the point-prevalence of mechanical ventilation to be 284/491(58%). Common modes used were synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support, pressure support ventilation (each 116/284, 41%) and pressure-control modes (48/284, 17%). Relative to volume-control modes, pressure-control was more frequently used for patients with respiratory disease (odds ratio 4.7, 95% confidence interval 2.4 to 9.2, P <0.001) or greater severity of illness (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.6, P = 0.01, per five-point increment in the maximum sequential organ failure score). Excluding cardiothoracic surgery patients, the Kaplan-Meier estimated median total ventilation duration was 1.9 days (interquartile range 0.8 to 6.8 days). Apart from 24/255 (9.4%) patients who received only pressure support ventilation, weaning methods (attempted in 255 patients, 29 prior deaths) included: change to pressure support ventilation (186/255, 73%), T-piece (31/255, 12%) or other methods (14/255, 5.5%). The point prevalence of mechanical ventilation was greater than comparable international studies. Australian and New Zealand intensive care unit ventilatory practices are similar, but differ substantially from published international survey results, due to a near absence of assist/control, prominent use of pressure-control modes and a preference forpressure support ventilation weaning as opposed to T-piece.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".