Effects of PEEP levels following repeated recruitment maneuvers on ventilator‐induced lung injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with and without a recruitment maneuver (RM) may have a significant impact on ventilator-induced lung injury but this issue has not been well addressed. METHODS: Anesthetized rats received hydrochloric acid (HCl, pH 1.5) aspiration, followed by mechanical ventilation with a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg. The animals were randomized into four groups of 10 each: (1) high PEEP at 6 cm H(2)O with an RM by applying peak airway pressure at 30 cm H(2)O for 10 s every 15 min; (2) low PEEP at 2 cm H(2)O with RM; (3) high PEEP alone; and (4) low PEEP alone. RESULTS: The mean arterial pressure and the amounts of fluid infused were similar in the four groups. Application of the higher PEEP improved oxygenation compared with the lower PEEP groups (P<0.05). The lung compliance was better reserved, and the systemic cytokine responses and lung wet to dry ratio were lower in the high PEEP than in the low PEEP group for a given RM (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a combination of periodic RM and the higher PEEP had an additive effect in improving oxygenation and pulmonary mechanics and attenuation of inflammation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".