Continuous negative abdominal distension augments recruitment of atelectatic lung*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: In acute lung injury, atelectasis is common and frequently develops in the dependent and diaphragmatic regions. Attempts to recruit lung with positive pressure constitute a major aim in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome but are associated with overdistension and injury in nonatelectatic regions. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that continuous negative abdominal pressure using an iron lung would augment positive end-expiratory pressure in recruiting atelectatic lung. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS: An in vivo rabbit model of ventilator-induced lung injury was used in which a recruitment maneuver followed by positive end-expiratory pressure (110 cm H2O) had no effect on oxygenation. Addition of sustained continuous negative abdominal pressure (-5 cm H2O) to the positive end-expiratory pressure significantly increased the end-expired lung volume and PaO2 but impaired ventricular preload and cardiac output (suggested by echocardiography). Addition of transient (15 mins) continuous negative abdominal pressure resulted in comparable and lasting (60 mins) increases in PaO2. Sustained, but not transient, continuous negative abdominal pressure was associated with hemodynamic depression and lactic acidosis, which appeared (illustrative echocardiography, n = 2) to be caused by decreased cardiac preload. Computerized tomography (n = 2) suggested that continuous negative abdominal pressure was an effective adjunct to positive end-expiratory pressure for recruiting atelectasis in dependent and diaphragmatic regions. In surfactant-depleted but noninjured lungs, sustained continuous negative abdominal pressure augmented lung recruitment and oxygenation in the setting of higher (but not lower) levels of positive end-expiratory pressure and reduced central venous oxygenation. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous negative abdominal pressure may be a potential adjunct to positive end-expiratory pressure in the recruitment of diaphragmatic atelectasis. The approach ultimately might be useful when ceilings exist on the level of desired positive end-expiratory pressure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".