The temperature and humidity of inspired gases in infants using a pediatric circle system: effects of high and low‐flow anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of low-flow anesthesia on the temperature and humidity of the inspired gas in infants during mechanical ventilation is unknown. This study was designed to evaluate the temperature and humidity of the inspired gas in infants using a pediatric circle absorber system with high and low fresh gas flow (HFGF and LFGF) anesthesia. METHODS: Twenty infants participated in this observational, sequential, cross-over study. Each infant was mechanically ventilated with a Kion Anesthesia Workstation, using a pediatric anesthesia circle circuit with both HFGF (6 l.min(-1)) and LFGF (0.6 l.min(-1)) technique. Airway temperature was recorded continuously at 16 sites throughout the breathing circuit. The relative humidity of the inspired gas was measured at the elbow connector adjacent to the CO2 sampling line. RESULTS: The mean airway temperatures of the inspired gas and the changes in mean airway temperatures throughout the breathing circuit during HFGF and LFGF did not differ significantly. The mean relative humidity of the inspired gas at steady state using a LFGF technique, 33.7 +/- 3.6%, was approximately threefold greater than it was with a HFGF technique, 11.9 +/- 5.1% (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Low-flow anesthesia with a pediatric circle system in infants neither increases the temperature of the inspired gas, nor achieves the minimum humidity of 50% reported to prevent ciliary damage, although the humidity during LFGF did increase threefold compared with HFGF. To maintain the temperature and humidity of the inspired gas during mechanical ventilation in infants, passive or active gas humidification should be used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".