MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biologically variable ventilation improves gas exchange and respiratory mechanics in a model of severe bronchospasm*

2007· article· en· W2072168821 on OpenAlexaff
W. Alan C. Mutch, Timothy G. Buchman, Linda Girling, E Walker, Bruce M. McManus, M. Ruth Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchospasmMedicineVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaMechanical ventilationRespiratory physiologyRespiratory minute volumePulmonary complianceRespiratory systemInternal medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Mechanical ventilation can be lifesaving for status asthmaticus, but how best to accomplish mechanical ventilation is unclear. Biologically variable ventilation (mechanical ventilation that emulates healthy variation) and conventional control mode ventilation (monotonously regular) were compared in an animal model of bronchospasm to determine which approach yields better gas exchange and respiratory mechanics. DESIGN: A randomized prospective trial of biologically variable ventilation vs. control mode ventilation in swine. SETTING: University research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Eighteen farm-raised pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Methacholine was administered as a nebulized aerosol to initiate bronchospasm, defined as doubling of peak inspiratory pressure and respiratory system resistance, and then randomized (n = 9 each group) to either continue control mode ventilation or switch to biologically variable ventilation at the same minute ventilation. Over the next 4 hrs, hemodynamics, blood gases, respiratory mechanics, and carbon dioxide expirograms were recorded hourly. At end-experiment, tracheobronchial lavage was undertaken to determine interleukin-6 and -10 concentrations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements of physiologic variables and inflammatory cytokines showed that biologically variable ventilation significantly improved gas exchange, with greater arterial oxygen tensions (p = .006; group x time interaction), lower arterial carbon dioxide tensions (p = .0003; group effect), lower peak inspiratory pressures (p = .0001; group x time), greater static compliance (p = .0001; group x time), greater dynamic compliance (p = .0001; group x time), and lower total respiratory system resistance (p = .028; group x time), compared with conventional ventilation. The appearance of inflammatory cytokines in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (interleukin-6 and -10) was not affected by mode of ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental model, biologically variable ventilation was superior to control mode ventilation in terms of gas exchange and respiratory mechanics during severe bronchospasm.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207