Lung volume assessment in acute respiratory distress syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Measurements of lung volumes allow evaluating the pathophysiogical severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in terms of the degree of reduction in aerated lung volume, calculating strain, quantifying recruitment and/or hyperinflation, and gas volume distribution. We summarize the current techniques for lung volume assessment selected according to their possible usage in the ICU and discuss the recent findings obtained with implementation of these techniques in patients with ARDS. RECENT FINDINGS: Computed tomography technique remains irreplaceable in terms of quantitative aeration of different lung regions, but the commonly used cut-offs for classification may be questioned with recent findings on nonpathological lungs. Monitoring end expiratory lung volume using nitrogen washout technique enhanced our understanding on lung volume change during positioning, pleural effusion drainage, intra-abdominal hypertension, and recruitment maneuver. Recent studies supported that tidal volume could not surrogate tidal strain, which needs measurement of functional residual capacity and which is correlated with pro-inflammatory lung response. SUMMARY: Although lung volume measurements are still limited to research area of ARDS, recent progress in technology provides clinicians more opportunities to evaluate lung volumes noninvasively at the bedside and may facilitate individualization of ventilator settings based on the specific physiological understandings of a given patient.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".