Validity of esophageal pressure measurements with positive end‐expiratory pressure in preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research suggested that esophageal pressure changes (DeltaP(es)) may not reflect pleural pressure changes (DeltaP(pl)) in the presence of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), making assessments of dynamic lung mechanics invalid in these circumstances. To test this hypothesis, we measured DeltaP(es) using a water-filled catheter in 18 preterm infants with lung disease (9 intubated), and adjusted the catheter position to achieve a valid occlusion test. End-expiratory occlusions were then carried out at PEEP (cm H(2)O) of 0, 4, and 8, and plots of DeltaP(es) against DeltaP(ao) during airway occlusion were examined to derive the ratio DeltaP(es)/DeltaP(ao) and the r value (as a measure of linearity). There was no significant change in DeltaP(es)/DeltaP(ao), which remained close to 1.0 as PEEP was increased from 0 to 8 cm H(2)O, and r also remained close to unity, indicating no appreciable hysteresis or alinearity of the plots. Our results show that DeltaP(es), when measured with an appropriately placed water-filled catheter, continues to reflect DeltaP(pl) accurately when lung volume is raised by applying PEEP up to 8 cm H(2)O.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".