Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist Increases Respiratory Variability and Complexity in Acute Respiratory Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a partial ventilatory support mode where positive pressure is provided in relation to diaphragmatic electrical activity (EAdi). Central inspiratory activity is normally not monotonous, but it demonstrates short-term variability and complexity. The authors reasoned that NAVA should produce a more "natural" or variable breathing pattern than other modes. This study compared respiratory variability and complexity during pressure support ventilation (PSV) and NAVA. METHODS: Flow and EAdi were recorded during routine PSV (tidal volume approximately 6-8 ml/kg) and four NAVA levels (1-4 cm H2O/microVEAdi) in 12 intubated patients. Breath-by-breath variability of flow and EAdi-related variables was quantified by the coefficient of variation (CV) and autocorrelation analysis. Complexity of flow and EAdi was described using noise titration, largest Lyapunov exponent, Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy, and three-dimensional phase portraits. RESULTS: Switching from PSV to NAVA increased the CV and decreased the autocorrelation for most flow-related variables in a dose-dependent manner (P < 0.05, partial eta for the CV of mean inspiratory flow 0.642). The changes were less marked for EAdi. A positive noise limit was consistently found for flow and EAdi. Largest Lyapunov exponent and Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy for flow were greater during NAVA than PSV and increased with NAVA level (P < 0.05, partial eta 0.334 and 0.312, respectively). Largest Lyapunov exponent and Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy for EAdi were not influenced by ventilator mode. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PSV, NAVA increases the breathing pattern variability and complexity of flow, whereas the complexity of EAdi is unchanged. Whether this improves clinical outcomes remains to be determined.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".