Bedside assessment of respiratory viscoelastic properties in ventilated patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viscoelasticity represents an important component of respiratory mechanics, being responsible, in some cases, for most of the pressure dissipated during breathing. Hitherto the methods available for determining the viscoelastic properties have been simplified, but are still time-demanding and depend on a great deal of calculation. In this study, a simple means of determining respiratory viscoelastic properties during mechanical ventilation was introduced. The viscoelastic constants of the respiratory system, modelled as a Maxwell body, were studied in 17 normal subjects and seven patients with acute lung injury (ALI) using two end-inspiratory occlusions; one with a short inspiratory time (tI) to determine the elastic component of viscoelasticity and the other with a long tI to assess the resistive component of viscoelasticity. The results were reproducible and similar to those provided by the previously described multiple-breath method (MB). The mean+/-SD viscoelastic resistance was 5.31+/-1.50 cm H2O x L(-1) x s with the proposed method and 5.71+/-1.87 cm H2O x L(-1) x s with the MB method in normal subjects, and 8.93+/-2.82 cm H2O x L(-1) x s and 10.36+/-3.13 cm H2O x L(-1), respectively in ALI patients. The mean+/-SD viscoelastic elastance was 3.92+/-0.84 cm H2O x L(-1) and 4.94+/-1.01 cm H2O x L(-1) in normal subjects and 7.08+/-2.01 cm H2O x L(-1) and 8.21+/-1.16 cm H2O x L(-1) in ALI patients, respectively. The mean+/-SD viscoelastic time constant was 1.36+/-0.24 s and 1.17+/-0.34 s in normal subjects and 1.26+/-0.35 s and 1.24+/-0.23 in ALI patients, respectively. The method was easy to perform and applicable at the bedside in clinical routine.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".