Negative-Pressure Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Conventional positive-pressure ventilation delivers pressure to the airways; in contrast, negative pressure is delivered globally to the chest and abdomen. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that ventilation with negative pressure results in better oxygenation and less injury than with positive pressure. METHODS: Anesthetized, surfactant-depleted rabbits were ventilated for 2.5 hours in pairs (positive or negative). Tidal volume was 12 ml . kg(-1), normocapnia was maintained by adjusting respiratory rate, and Fi(O(2)) was 1.0. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung injury was assessed with histologic scoring, perfusion using thermodilution (global perfusion), and injected intravascular microspheres (regional perfusion); and dynamic computed tomography was used to determine inflation patterns. Negative pressure was associated with a higher Pa(O(2)), a lower Pa-Pet(CO(2)) gradient (despite identical minute ventilation), and less lung injury. Lung perfusion (global and regional) was similar with positive and negative pressure. Positive end-expiratory pressure applied to the airway was more efficiently transmitted to the pleural space than comparable levels of negative end-expiratory pressure applied to the chest wall; however, the oxygenation associated with any level of end-expiratory lung volume was greater when achieved by negative versus positive pressure. Dynamic computed tomography suggested that lung distension achieved with negative pressure is characterized by greater proportions of normally aerated lung (with less atelectasis) during inspiration and at end-expiration. CONCLUSIONS: Negative-pressure ventilation results in superior oxygenation that is unrelated to lung perfusion and may be explained by more effective inflation of lung volume during both inspiration and expiration.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".