High-frequency oscillation in children after Fontan operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The increase in intrathoracic pressure produced by positive-pressure ventilation has been shown to have an adverse effect on pulmonary blood flow after Fontan operations. OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to compare the hemodynamic effect of high-frequency oscillation ventilation (HFOV) with intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) in children after Fontan operations. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Department of pediatric critical care in a tertiary care, university-based children's hospital. PATIENTS: Five children (age, 2.3 +/- 0.3 yrs) in the early period after Fontan operations. INTERVENTION: After a short period of stabilization after surgery using conventional IPPV, baseline data were collected and patients were converted to HFOV. After a short period of stabilization using HFOV, a second series of measurements were performed and patients were reconnected to IPPV, after which a third series of measurements were made. Paco(2) and pH were kept unchanged throughout the study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Hemodynamic and respiratory variables were obtained at each time point (IPPV1, HFOV, and IPPV2). The mean cardiac index at baseline (IPPV1) was 3.1 +/- 1.1 L/min/m(2); during HFOV, it was 3.2 +/- 1.2 L/min/m(2) (p =.46); and during IPPV2, it was 3.1 +/- 1.1 L/min/m(2). The mean pulmonary vascular resistance values using IPPV1, HFOV, and IPPV2 were 3.0 +/- 1.1, 2.7 +/- 1.3 (p =.21), and 2.6 +/- 1.1 Woods units/m(2), respectively. CONCLUSION: HFOV had no effect on the cardiac output or the pulmonary vascular resistance in a small group of stable patients after Fontan operations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".