Effects of PEEP on inspiratory resistance in mechanically ventilated COPD patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effect of increased lung volume with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on respiratory resistance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Ten patients with COPD were mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure. PEEP was set at 0, 5, 10 and 15 cm H2O. Using the rapid airway occlusion technique, the total inspiratory resistance of the respiratory system was partitioned into interrupter (Rint,rs) and additional effective (deltaRrs) resistances. At each level of PEEP, at constant inflation flow, the inflation volume (deltaV) was varied from 0.2-1 L, and, at constant deltaV, the inflation flow was varied from 0.2-1.2 L x s(-1). The changes in end-expiratory lung volume (deltaEELV) induced by PEEP were also measured. The difference between the EELV and the relaxation volume of the respiratory system (deltaFRC) increased significantly with PEEP of 10 and 15 cm H2O as compared to a PEEP of 0, the increase being associated with a significant reduction of Rint,rs. By contrast, deltaRrs was independent of deltaFRC. At constant deltaV, Rint,rs fitted Rohrer's equation (Rint,rs = K1 + K2 x flow). While K2 significantly declined with AFRC, K1 did not change. At all levels of PEEP, deltaRrs was not influenced by deltaFRC. With increasing lung volume induced by positive end-expiratory pressure, the inspiratory airway resistance decreased, whereas the viscoelastic behaviour of the respiratory system, as reflected by additional effective resistance, did not change.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".