Prospective Randomized Crossover Study of a New Closed-loop Control System versus Pressure Support during Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intellivent is a new full closed-loop controlled ventilation that automatically adjusts both ventilation and oxygenation parameters. The authors compared gas exchange and breathing pattern variability of Intellivent and pressure support ventilation (PSV). METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, single-blind design crossover study, 14 patients were ventilated during the weaning phase, with Intellivent or PSV, for two periods of 24 h in a randomized order. Arterial blood gases were obtained after 1, 8, 16, and 24 h with each mode. Ventilatory parameters were recorded continuously in a breath-by-breath basis during the two study periods. The primary endpoint was oxygenation, estimated by the calculation of the difference between the PaO2/FIO2 ratio obtained after 24 h of ventilation and the PaO2/FIO2 ratio obtained at baseline in each mode. The variability in the ventilatory parameters was also evaluated by the coefficient of variation (SD to mean ratio). RESULTS: There were no adverse events or safety issues requiring premature interruption of both modes. The PaO2/FIO2 (mean ± SD) ratio improved significantly from 245 ± 75 at baseline to 294 ± 123 (P = 0.03) after 24 h of Intellivent. The coefficient of variation of inspiratory pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure (median [interquartile range]) were significantly higher with Intellivent, 16 [11-21] and 15 [7-23]%, compared with 6 [5-7] and 7 [5-10]% in PSV. Inspiratory pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure, and FIO2 changes were adjusted significantly more often with Intellivent compared with PSV. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PSV, Intellivent during a 24-h period improved the PaO2/FIO2 ratio in parallel with more variability in the ventilatory support and more changes in ventilation settings.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".