ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of oxygenation indices incorporating SpO₂ and PEEP for assessing ARDS severity: Evidence from the MIMIC-IV and eICU collaborative research database v2.0 databases.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe in-hospital mortality of acute respiratory distress syndrome can reach 35-45%, with patients requiring a more convenient and accurate way to assess the disease condition, which can change even more rapidly in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in intensive care units.
methodsEligible patients in MIMIC-IV v3.0and eICU Collaborative Research Database v2.0were screened by the Berlin definition to examine the comparison of the diagnostic abilities of SpO2*10/FiO2*PEEP (S/F*P), PaO2*10/FiO2*PEEP (P/F*P), and SpO2/ FiO2 (S/F), with nine types of machine learning performed on S/F*P for 10 cross-validations, validating the diagnostic ability of the models for ARDS patients.
resultsROC_AUC = 0.700(95 CI:0.624 ~ 0.777) for S/F, ROC_AUC = 0.720(95 CI:0.668 ~ 0.772) for P/F*P, and ROC_AUC = 0.761(95 CI:0.693 ~ 0.830) for S/F*P showed that S/F had a better fit in diagnosing ARDS with slightly inferior efficacy to P/F*P, had superior diagnostic efficacy after incorporating peep into S/F, and S/F*P showed good diagnostic efficacy in 9 machine learning and 10 cross-validations. In terms of predicting the prognosis of patients, the ability of S/F*P is not as good as S/F, but the grading of S/F*P has a more positive significance for the evaluation of the prognosis of patients.
conclusionS/F*P provides a more convenient judgment for mechanically ventilated patients, avoiding the phenomenon of clinical diagnosis of PEEP and oxygenation index separation as much as possible, minimizing invasive operation of patients and improving the selection of ARDS treatment modalities. Therefore, S/F*P provides a reference for the early treatment of ARDS in the clinic to improve the resource allocation in the ICU and reduce the mortality of patients, Given all patients had ARDS diagnosis, this study evaluated relative diagnostic performance among indices rather than disease vs. non-disease discrimination.
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.