Comparison of lung protection strategies using conventional and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared pathophysiological and biochemical indexes of acute lung injury in a saline-lavaged rabbit model with different ventilatory strategies: a control group consisting of moderate tidal volume (V(T)) (10-12 ml/kg) and low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (4-5 cmH(2)O); and three protective groups: 1) low V(T) (5-6 ml/kg) high PEEP, 2-3 cmH(2)O greater than the lower inflection point; 2) low V(T) (5-6 ml/kg), high PEEP (8-10 cmH(2)O); and 3) high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). The strategy using PEEP > inflection point resulted in hypotension and barotrauma. HFOV attenuated the decrease in pulmonary compliance, the lung inflammation assessed by polymorphonuclear leukocyte infiltration and tumor necrosis factor-alpha concentration in the alveolar space, and pathological changes of the small airways and alveoli. Conventional mechanical ventilation using lung protection strategies (low V(T) high PEEP) only attenuated the decrease in oxygenation and pulmonary compliance. Therefore, HFOV may be a preferable option as a lung protection strategy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".