Comparison of Energy Expenditure and Oxygen Consumption of Spontaneous Breathing Trial Conducted With and Without Automatic Tube Compensation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weaning from mechanical ventilation is defined as the process of release of ventilatory support and how the evaluation of this phase is conducted in the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). One of the most used modes of SBT is the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which applies a continuous positive pressure in both inspiration and expiration. However, together with the mechanical ventilation modes, the automatic tube compensation (ATC) can be used, which compensates the resistance imposed by the endotracheal tube. The objective of this study was to compare oxygen consumption (VO2) and energy expenditure (EE) during SBT conducted with and without ATC. METHODS: The study was prospective, randomized and crossover. Forty mechanically ventilated patients were admitted to an intensive care unit of a university tertiary hospital. The participants were randomly allocated in group 1, in which SBT was initiated with CPAP and ATC, followed by CPAP without ATC or in group 2, in which SBT was initiated with CPAP without ATC, followed by CPAP with ATC. Indirect calorimetry helped to measure VO2 and EE during SBT. RESULTS: The differences between VO2 and EE obtained during SBT with ATC and without ATC were -1.6 mL/kg/min (95% CI: -4.36 - 1.07) and 5.4 kcal/day (95% CI: -21.67 - 10.79), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that VO2 and EE obtained during SBT with and without ATC were not different.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".