MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protective Ventilation Influences Systemic Inflammation after Esophagectomy

2006· article· en· W2006911249 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Michelet, Xavier Benoît D’Journo, Antoine Roch, C. Doddoli, Valérie Marin, Laurent Papazian, Isabelle Decamps, Fabienne Brégeon, P. Thomas, Jean‐Pierre Auffray

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagectomyVentilation (architecture)Tidal volumeSystemic inflammationAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationLungPeak inspiratory pressureGastroenterologyEsophageal cancerRespiratory systemInflammationInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy induces a systemic inflammatory response whose extent has been recognized as a predictive factor of postoperative respiratory morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a protective ventilatory strategy to reduce systemic inflammation in patients undergoing esophagectomy. METHODS: The authors prospectively investigated 52 patients undergoing planned esophagectomy for cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to a conventional ventilation strategy (n = 26; tidal volume of 9 ml/kg during two-lung and one-lung ventilation; no positive end-expiratory pressure) or a protective ventilation strategy (n = 26; tidal volume of 9 ml/kg during two-lung ventilation, reduced to 5 ml/kg during one-lung ventilation; positive end-expiratory pressure 5 cm H2O throughout the operative time). RESULTS: Plasmatic levels of interleukin (IL)-1beta, IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor alpha were measured perioperatively and postoperatively. Pulmonary function and postoperative evolution were also evaluated. Patients who received protective strategy had lower blood levels of IL-1beta, IL-6, and IL-8 at the end of one-lung ventilation (0.24 [0.15-0.40] vs. 0.56 [0.38-0.89] pg/ml, P < 0.001; 91 [61-117] vs. 189 [127-294] pg/ml, P < 0.001; and 30 [22-45] vs. 49 [29-69] pg/ml, P < 0.05, respectively) and 18 h postoperatively (0.18 [0.13-0.30] vs. 0.43 [0.34-0.54] pg/ml, P < 0.001; 54 [36-89] vs. 116 [78-208] pg/ml, P < 0.001; 16 [11-24] vs. 35 [28-53] pg/ml, P < 0.001, respectively). Protective strategy resulted in higher oxygen partial pressure to inspired oxygen fraction ratio during one-lung ventilation and 1 h postoperatively and in a reduction of postoperative mechanical ventilation duration (115 +/- 38 vs. 171 +/- 57 min, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A protective ventilatory strategy decreases the proinflammatory systemic response after esophagectomy, improves lung function, and results in earlier extubation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations394
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207