Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm during Pressure Support Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared crural diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) with transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) during varying levels of pressure support ventilation (PS) in 13 intubated patients. With changing PS, we found no evidence for changes in neuromechanical coupling of the diaphragm. From lowest to highest PS (2 cm H(2)O +/- 4 to 20 cm H(2)O +/- 7), tidal volume increased from 430 ml +/- 180 to 527 ml +/- 180 (p < 0.001). The inspiratory volume calculated during the period when EAdi increased to its peak did not change from 276 +/- 147 to 277 +/- 162 ml, p = 0.976. Respiratory rate decreased from 23.9 (+/- 7) to 21.3 (+/- 7) breaths/min (p = 0.015). EAdi and Pdi decreased proportionally by adding PS (r = 0.84 and r = 0.90, for mean and peak values, respectively). Mean and peak EAdi decreased (p < 0.001) by 33 +/- 21% (mean +/- SD) and 37 +/- 23% with the addition of 10 cm H(2)O of PS, similar to the decrease in the mean and peak Pdi (p < 0.001) observed (34 +/- 36 and 35 +/- 23%). We also found that ventilator assist continued during the diaphragm deactivation period, a phenomenon that was further exaggerated at higher PS levels. We conclude that EAdi is a valid measurement of neural drive to the diaphragm in acute respiratory failure.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".