Comparison of two ventilator circuits for Dräger Babylog high‐frequency ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The Dräger Babylog 8000plus ventilator (Dräger Medical Systems, Lübeck, Germany) can provide both conventional and high-frequency ventilation (HFV). Dräger recommends specific circuits for each of these modes. We investigated the performance of the Babylog ventilator in HFV mode when used with the recommended circuits for both conventional and HFV. METHODS: The Fisher and Paykel RT235 (conventional; Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) and Hytrel (HFV; Fisher and Paykel Healthcare) circuits were studied using a 50-mL test lung. Tidal volume, high-frequency minute volume and ventilator alarms were compared at 100 combinations of mean airway pressures (10-16 cm H₂O), frequencies (6-14 Hz) and amplitudes (20-60%). RESULTS: Tidal volume with the two circuits differed by < 5% for tidal volumes ≤ 2.5 mL. Above this, tidal volumes delivered with the HFV circuit were up to 15% more than that obtained with the conventional ventilation circuit, and high-frequency minute volume differed by up to 30%. With the exception of the highest tidal/minute volumes, the tidal volume delivered using the HFV circuit could also be achieved with adjusted frequency or amplitude when using the conventional circuit. More 'pressure measurement out of range' alarms were noted with the conventional ventilation circuit, particularly at mean airway pressure ≥ 14 cm H₂O and frequency ≤ 10 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: The conventional ventilation circuit may allow delivery of adequate tidal volume for some infants. Where requirements are higher, the HFV circuit allows the Babylog to deliver higher tidal volumes and higher minute volume, and reduce alarms.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".