Should we use driving pressure to set tidal volume?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) can occur despite use of tidal volume (VT) limited to 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight, especially in patients with a smaller aerated compartment (i.e. the baby lung) in which, indeed, tidal ventilation takes place. Because respiratory system static compliance (CRS) is mostly affected by the volume of the baby lung, the ratio VT/CRS (i.e. the driving pressure, ΔP) may potentially help tailoring interventions on VT setting. RECENT FINDINGS: Driving pressure is the ventilatory variable most strongly associated with changes in survival and has been shown to be the key mediator of the effects of mechanical ventilation on outcome in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Observational data suggest an increased risk of death for patients with ΔP more than 14 cmH2O, but a well tolerated threshold for this parameter has yet to be identified. Prone position along with simple ventilatory adjustments to facilitate CO2 clearance may help reduce ΔP in isocapnic conditions. The safety and feasibility of low-flow extracorporeal CO2 removal in enhancing further reduction in VT and ΔP are currently being investigated. SUMMARY: Driving pressure is a bedside available parameter that may help identify patients prone to develop VILI and at increased risk of death. No study had prospectively evaluated whether interventions on ΔP may provide a relevant clinical benefit, but it appears physiologically sound to try titrating VT to minimize ΔP, especially when it is higher than 14 cmH2O and when it has minimal costs in terms of CO2 clearance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".