ABSTRACT 416
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Monitoring of electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) is a minimally invasive bedside technology assessing ventilatory drive, which indirectly reflects respiratory efforts. In patients with neuromuscular disease, EAdi may help to characterize and evaluate the progression of the respiratory disease. While in normally breathing infants, peak EAdi is usually below 20 mcV, EAdi values have not been described in congenital myotonic dystrophy. Aims: To describe EAdi in infants with congenital myotonic dystrophy. Methods: Retrospective study of 3 ventilatory assist dependent infants with congenital myotonic dystrophy. EAdi was recorded using a specific nasogastric catheter (Maquet). To assess work of breathing, esophageal pressure was recorded in case 3 with an esophageal balloon. The parents gave their consent, local IRB agreement is not necessary for case-report study. Results:Table: No title available.In all cases, signs of respiratory distress were absent. In case 3, esophageal pressure-time product was 13 cmH2O.s.min-1, confirming a severely diminished work of breathing. Conclusions: Infants with congenital myotonic dystrophy appear to have particularly high EAdi. This does not reflect a high work of breathing but rather a response to low ventilatory efficiency due to muscle weakness. Neuro-ventilatory coupling should be taken into account while interpreting EAdi value.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.583 | 0.409 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".