Laryngeal Muscle Activity during Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation in Nonsedated Newborn Lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that nasal pressure support ventilation (nPSV) can lead to an active inspiratory laryngeal narrowing in lambs. This, in turn, can limit lung ventilation and divert air into the digestive system, with potentially deleterious consequences. On the other hand, nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) is particularly attractive in newborns, especially since, unlike nPSV, it does not require synchronization with the patient's inspiratory efforts. OBJECTIVES: The main aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that glottal constrictor muscle activity (EMG) does not develop during nHFOV. A secondary objective was to study laryngeal EMG during nHFOV-induced central apneas. METHODS: Polysomnographic recordings were performed in 7 nonsedated lambs which were ventilated with increasing levels of nPSV and nHFOV at both 4 and 8 Hz, in random order. States of alertness, diaphragm and glottal muscle EMG, SpO2, and respiratory movements were continuously recorded. RESULTS: While phasic inspiratory glottal constrictor EMG appeared with increasing nPSV levels in 6 out of 7 lambs, it was never observed with nHFOV. In addition, nHFOV at 4 Hz dramatically inhibited central respiratory drive in 4/7 lambs, with 64-100% of recording time spent in central apnea in 3 lambs. No glottal constrictor EMG was observed during these central apneas. CONCLUSION: nHFOV does not induce glottal constrictor muscle EMG in nonsedated newborn lambs, in contrast to nPSV. This may be an additional advantage of nHFOV relative to nPSV.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".