Liquid Ventilation for the Induction of Ultrafast Hypothermia in Resuscitation Sciences: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquid ventilation was initially proposed for lung lavage and respiratory support. More recently, it was also investigated as an experimental strategy for ultrafast cooling or organ preservation during ischemic disorders. The goal of this article is to identify and review the studies that investigated liquid ventilation in the field of resuscitation sciences. An exhaustive analysis of the literature was performed using the Medline database up to 15th September 2015. Articles were selected according to their relevance. All articles focusing on respiratory support were excluded. On the basis of 76 retrieved studies from the Medline database, 29 were included in this review. All studies were experimental reports and most of them investigated the cooling properties of liquid ventilation in animal models of experimental cardiac arrest or coronary artery occlusion in rabbits or pigs. Animal studies demonstrated a wide range of potential applications of total liquid ventilation in resuscitation sciences. This strategy is able to provide ultrafast cooling, independent of the body weight. In animal models of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, it was shown to provide potent benefits widely linked to cooling rapidity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".