Daytime Mouthpiece for Continuous Noninvasive Ventilation in Individuals With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is commonly used to provide ventilatory support for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Once 24-h ventilation is required, the decision between invasive tracheostomy ventilation and palliation is often faced. This study describes the use and outcomes of daytime mouthpiece ventilation added to nighttime mask ventilation for continuous NIV in subjects with ALS as an effective alternative. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 39 subjects with ALS using daytime mouthpiece ventilation over a 17-y period. RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects were successful with mouthpiece ventilation, 2 were excluded, 2 stopped because of lack of motivation, and 4 with bulbar subscores of the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (b-ALSFRS-R) between 0 and 3 physically failed to use it consistently. No subject in the successful group had a b-ALSFRS-R score of <6. Thirty of the successful subjects were able to generate a maximum insufflation capacity - vital capacity difference with lung volume recruitment. The median (range) survival to tracheostomy or death from initiation of nocturnal NIV and mouthpiece ventilation were 648 (176-2,188) and 286 (41-1,769) d, respectively. Peak cough flow with lung-volume recruitment >180 L/min at initiation of mouthpiece ventilation was associated with a longer survival (637 ± 468 vs 240 ± 158 d (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mouthpiece ventilation provides effective ventilation and prolonged survival for individuals with ALS requiring full-time ventilatory support and maintaining adequate bulbar function.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".