Chest electrical impedance tomography examination, data analysis, terminology, clinical use and recommendations: consensus statement of the TRanslational EIT developmeNt stuDy group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) has undergone 30 years of development. Functional chest examinations with this technology are considered clinically relevant, especially for monitoring regional lung ventilation in mechanically ventilated patients and for regional pulmonary function testing in patients with chronic lung diseases. As EIT becomes an established medical technology, it requires consensus examination, nomenclature, data analysis and interpretation schemes. Such consensus is needed to compare, understand and reproduce study findings from and among different research groups, to enable large clinical trials and, ultimately, routine clinical use. Recommendations of how EIT findings can be applied to generate diagnoses and impact clinical decision-making and therapy planning are required. This consensus paper was prepared by an international working group, collaborating on the clinical promotion of EIT called TRanslational EIT developmeNt stuDy group. It addresses the stated needs by providing (1) a new classification of core processes involved in chest EIT examinations and data analysis, (2) focus on clinical applications with structured reviews and outlooks (separately for adult and neonatal/paediatric patients), (3) a structured framework to categorise and understand the relationships among analysis approaches and their clinical roles, (4) consensus, unified terminology with clinical user-friendly definitions and explanations, (5) a review of all major work in thoracic EIT and (6) recommendations for future development (193 pages of online supplements systematically linked with the chief sections of the main document). We expect this information to be useful for clinicians and researchers working with EIT, as well as for industry producers of this technology.
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 | 0.341 | 0.363 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
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".