Indications for manual lung hyperinflation (MHI) in the mechanically ventilated patient with chronic obstructivepulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manual lung hyperinflation (MHI) can enhance secretion clearance, improve total lung/thorax compliance and assist in the resolution of acute atelectasis. To enhance secretion clearance in the intubated patient, the evidence highlights the need to maximize expiratory flow. Chronic pulmonary diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have often been cited as potential precautions and/or contra-indications to the use of manual lung hyperinflation (MHI). There is an absence of evidence on the effects of MHI in the patient with COPD. Research on the effects of mechanical ventilation in the patient with COPD provides a useful clinical examination of the effect of positive pressure on cardiac and pulmonary function. The potential effects of MHI in the COPD patient group were extrapolated on the basis of the MHI and mechanical ventilation literature. There is the potential for MHI to have both detrimental and beneficial effects on cardiac and pulmonary function in patients with COPD. The potential detrimental effects of MHI may include either, increased intrinsic peep through inadequate time for expiration by the breath delivery rate, tidal volume delivered or through the removal of applied external PEEP thereby causing more dynamic airway compression compromising downward expiratory flow, which may also retard bronchial mucus transport. MHI may also increase right ventricular after load through raised intrathoracic pressures with lung hyperinflation, and may therefore impair right ventricular function in patients with evidence of cor pulmonale. There is the potential for beneficial effects from MHI in the intubated COPD patient group (i.e., secretion clearance), but further research is required, especially on the effect of MHI on inspiratory and expiratory flow rate profiles in this patient group. The more controlled delivery of lung hyperinflation through the use of the mechanical ventilator may be a more optimal means of providing lung hyperinflation and should be further investigated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".