A simple mechanical device reduces subglottic injury in ventilated animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To test whether a simple inexpensive device that dynamically minimizes endotracheal cuff pressure throughout the respiratory cycle reduces endotracheal cuff pressure-related subglottic injury. STUDY DESIGN: Hypoxic animal model with one control and one experimental group. METHODS: Twelve S. scrofa domesticus piglets (14-16 kg) were intubated with standard endotracheal tubes and maintained in a hypoxic state to accelerate airway injury. Animals in the control group (n = 6) were ventilated with a constant pressure of 20 cm H₂O in the endotracheal tube cuff. Animals in the experimental group (n = 6) were ventilated using a custom-designed circuit that altered the pressure in the endotracheal tube cuff in synchrony with the ventilatory cycle. Larynges were harvested at the end of the experiment and examined histologically to determine the degree of airway injury induced by the endotracheal cuff. RESULTS: Animals in the experimental group suffered significantly less airway damage than those in the control group. The differences were seen primarily in the subglottis (aggregate damage score 6.5 vs. 12, P <0.05), where the experimental endotracheal tube cuff exerted the least pressure. There was no difference in damage to the glottic or supraglottic structures. CONCLUSIONS: A simple, reliable, and inexpensive means of modulating endotracheal tube cuff pressure with the ventilatory cycle led to a substantial decrease in airway injury in our animal model. Such reduction in cuff pressure may prove important for humans, particularly those in intensive care units who tend to have underlying conditions predisposing them to tracheal damage from the endotracheal tube cuff.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".