A Study of the Physiologic Responses to a Lung Recruitment Maneuver in Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude, duration, and consistency of the effects of lung recruitment maneuvers (RMs) on oxygenation, lung mechanics, and comfort in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We conducted a prospective physiologic study at 3 tertiary-care hospitals. We enrolled 28 consecutive eligible patients with ARDS or ALI and a ratio of P(aO(2)) to fraction of inspired oxygen (P(aO(2))/F(IO(2))) <or= 250 mm Hg while receiving F(IO(2)) >or= 0.50. We performed RMs twice daily for 3 days. The first RM was at 35 cm H(2)O for 20 s. If initial response was equivocal, the clinician immediately administered another RM at a higher pressure (40 cm H(2)O, then 45 cm H(2)O) or for longer period (30 s, then 40 s), in a randomized order. Each patient had up to 6 sets of up to 3 RMs. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients met the criteria for ARDS at baseline; 1 had ALI. There was no net effect on oxygenation or pulmonary mechanics following the first or subsequent RMs. The largest rise in P(aO(2)) was from 61 mm Hg to 71 mm Hg, and the largest decrease was 6 mm Hg following the first RM. Augmenting the inflation pressure or duration had no significant effect. These findings precluded analyses about predictors of response or consistency of response. Over the entire study of 122 RMs, 5 patients developed ventilator asynchrony, 3 appeared uncomfortable, 2 experienced transient hypotension, and 4 developed barotrauma that required intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the addition of scheduled RMs to usual treatment for ALI or ARDS.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it