Efficacy of a T-piece system and a continuous positive airway pressure system for apnea testing in the diagnosis of brain death*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare three methods of apnea testing for the confirmation of brain death. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover study. SETTING: Intensive care unit of a tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty adult patients requiring apnea testing for confirmation of brain death. INTERVENTIONS: Ten minute apnea testing was repeated in random order for every patient with the three oxygenation systems: oxygen catheter inserted through the endotracheal tube (oxygen 6 L/min), T-piece system (oxygen 12 L/min), and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) system 10 cm H2O (oxygen 12 L/min). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Arterial blood was drawn at 0, 2, 5, and 10 mins of each test. Compared with baseline, Paco2 increased by 30.6 +/- 7.4, 30.0 +/- 7.3 and 30.2 +/- 7.5 mm Hg during the apnea period (p = .96), reaching 73.3 +/- 8.3, 71.6 +/- 11.1, and 72.7 +/- 9.0 mm Hg at the end of the apnea test (p = .73) for the oxygen catheter, the T-piece, and the CPAP, respectively. Pao2 decreased less with the CPAP compared with the oxygen catheter or the T-piece (-22.4 +/- 76, -99.1 +/- 158, and -91.6 +/- 133 mm Hg, respectively, p < .01). In two patients, apnea testing could not be completed with the oxygen catheter and the T-piece because of desaturation, although it could be completed with the CPAP. CONCLUSIONS: The T-piece and the CPAP systems are effective alternatives to the standard oxygen catheter technique for apnea testing. Oxygenation was best maintained with the CPAP system, which can be useful in some patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".