Expiratory Flow Limitation and Intrinsic Positive End-Expiratory Pressure at Zero Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients with Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that in patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEPi) is generated by a disproportionate increase in expiratory flow resistance. Using the negative expiratory pressure (NEP) technique, we assessed whether expiratory flow limitation (EFL) and PEEPi were present at zero PEEP in 10 semirecumbent, mechanically ventilated ARDS patients. Because bronchodilators may decrease airway resistance, we also investigated the effect of nebulized salbutamol on EFL, PEEPi, and respiratory mechanics in these patients, and in seven patients we measured the latter variables in the supine position as well. In the semirecumbent position, eight of the 10 ARDS patients exhibited tidal EFL, ranging from 5 to 37% of the control tidal volume (VT), whereas PEEPi was present in all 10 subjects, ranging from 0.4 cm H(2)O to 7.7 cm H(2)O. The onset of EFL was heralded by a distinct inflection point on the expiratory flow-volume curve, which probably reflected small-airway closure. Administration of salbutamol had no statistically significant effect on PEEPi, EFL (as %VT), or respiratory mechanics. EFL (%VT) and PEEPi were significantly higher in the supine position than in the semirecumbent position, whereas the other respiratory variables did not change. Our results suggest that in the absence of externally applied PEEP, most ARDS patients exhibit EFL associated with small-airway closure and a concomitant PEEPi.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".