441
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Maintaining spontaneous ventilation during mechanical ventilation (MV) seems beneficial regarding oxygenation, ventilatory pressure, and diaphragm function. This necessitates synchronizing MV with the child breathing efforts. In adults, patient-ventilator asynchrony is frequent and independently associated with MV duration. Hypothesis: Patient-ventilator asynchrony is frequent in critically ill children and may be associated with a longer MV duration. Methods: Patients 1 week to 18 years old, ventilated for acute respiratory failure were eligible when spontaneous breathing was observed. To assess the patient ventilatory drive, diaphragm electrical activity (Edi) was recorded using a specific nasogastric catheter (Edi catheter, Maquet). The ventilatory pressure (Pvent) was obtained to reflect ventilator action. Edi and Pvent plots were analyzed semi-automatically in 20 patients to identify the timings of patient efforts and ventilator support. Inspiratory trigger and cycling-off delays, non-assisted breaths, and auto-triggered assist were calculated. An automatic method was also used in the entire group to assess asynchrony more objectively. This method classifies the cycles based on their trigger and cycling-off delays (expressed in % of respective inspiratory or expiratory time) and provides the % of adequately supported breaths (both delays < 33%). Results: 47 patients (mean ±SD) 35 ± 54 months old, with PIM2 score 3.1 ± 3.9, were evaluated 5 ± 7 days after admission. Inspiratory Pvent was 15 ± 7 cmH2O. Trigger and cycling off delays were 224 ± 135ms and 46 ± 266 ms; corresponding to 22 ± 4 % of the time. In addition, 16 ± 16% breaths were non-assisted, and 17 ± 21% assists were autotriggered. Only 27 ± 28% of breaths were considered adequately supported. Ventilatory drive was almost absent in 23% patients (Peak Edi <2 mcV). No relation was observed between asynchrony and MV duration. Conclusions: In this study, the children and the ventilator were poorly synchronized. Asynchrony was not associated with MV duration. Unexpectedly, the ventilatory drive was frequently blunted. Strategies to improve synchronisation should be evaluated and future studies should investigate the clinical impact of respiratory inactivity in children.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.445 | 0.340 |
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".