ArticleNature communications2025
Open-source computational pipeline flags instances of acute respiratory distress syndrome in mechanically ventilated adult patients.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS): epidemiology, etiology, molecular mechanisms, diagnosis and therapeutic strategies.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Physicians in critical care settings face information overload and decision fatigue, contributing to under-recognition of acute respiratory distress syndrome, which affects over 10% of intensive care patients and carries over 40% mortality rate. We present a reproducible computational pipeline to automatically identify this condition retrospectively in mechanically ventilated adults. This computational pipeline operationalizes the Berlin Definition by detecting bilateral infiltrates from radiology reports and a pneumonia diagnosis from attending physician notes, using interpretable classifiers trained on labeled data. Here we show that our integrated pipeline achieves high performance-93.5% sensitivity and 17.4% false positive rate-when applied to a held-out and publicly-available dataset from an external hospital. This substantially exceeds the 22.6% documentation rate observed in the same cohort. These results demonstrate that our automated adjudication pipeline can accurately identify an under-diagnosed condition in critical care and may support timely recognition and intervention through integration with electronic health records.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.