Effets de la pente de pressurisation et d'une respiration hypercapnique ou hypoxique sur la fermeture laryngée en aide inspiratoire nasale chez l'agneau nouveau-né
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We previously reported the development of an active inspiratory laryngeal narrowing against ventilator insufflations when inspiratory pressure is increased during nasal pressure support ventilation (nPSV) in newborn lambs. The present study aimed to further understand the factors involved in this inspiratory laryngeal narrowing. More specifically, we tested the hypothesis that a short inspiratory pressure rise time or a low PaCO2 level promotes inspiratory laryngeal narrowing observed in nPSV. The effect of hypoxia was also assessed. DESIGN – Prospective interventional study. SETTING Animal research laboratory at the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universite de Sherbrooke, Canada SUBJECTS Thirteen newborn lambs aged 4 to 5 days INTERVENTIONS Polysomnographic recordings were performed in chronically instrumented lambs to study states of alertness, glottal muscle electrical activity, tracheal pressure, SpO2 and respiratory movements. Newborn lambs were ventilated with progressively increasing levels of nPSV (10/4, 15/4 and 20/4 cmH2O), using a broad range of inspiratory rise times from 0.05 to 0.4 sec. Thereafter, either CO2 (PaCO2 = baseline value + 10 mmHg) or N2 (PaO2 = 45-55 mmHg) was added to the inspiratory line. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The percentage of respiratory cycles with phasic inspiratory activity of glottal constrictor muscle was measured and compared between the various experimental conditions. The different inspiratory pressure rise times tested did not alter the phasic inspiratory activity of glottal constrictor muscle during nPSV. By contrast, this activity was virtually abolished by increasing PaCO2 in all lambs. Finally, no alterations in the phasic inspiratory activity of glottal constrictor muscle during nPSV were observed during hypoxia. CONCLUSION Active inspiratory laryngeal narrowing during nPSV is not altered by inspiratory rise times ranging from 0.05 to 0.4 sec or by moderate hypoxia, whereas a moderate increase of the PCO2 in the inspiratory line abolishes this activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".