MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tidal volume delivery during continuous chest compressions and sustained inflation

2016· article· en· W2514794963 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne Lee Solevåg, T-F Lee, Min Lü, Georg M. Schmölzer

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineTidal volumeAnesthesiaCadaverVolume (thermodynamics)Elastic recoilRespiratory systemAnatomyInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To determine the distending pressure needed to achieve sufficient tidal volume (VT) delivery during continuous chest compressions (CC) superimposed by sustained inflation (SI) (CC+SI). Design Randomised animal/manikin trial. Setting University laboratory. Subjects Cadaver piglets/manikin. Interventions SI distending pressures of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O were delivered in random order during CC+SI for 2 min each. Main outcome measures VT, gas flow and airway pressure. Spearman's r for distending pressure and VT. Results Distending pressure and VT correlated in cadaver piglets (r=0.83, p<0.001), manikin (r=0.98, p<0.001) and combined data (r=0.49, p<0.001). VT was delivered during chest recoil during CC in both models. In cadaver piglets, a distending pressure ∼25 cm H2O was needed to achieve an adequate VT. Conclusions Chest recoil generates VT depending on an adequate distending pressure. This has previously been demonstrated in adult animals. A pressure of ∼25 cm H2O is needed to achieve an adequate VT delivery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & NeonatalSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207