Lung volume recruitment acutely increases respiratory system compliance in individuals with severe respiratory muscle weakness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to determine whether lung volume recruitment (LVR) acutely increases respiratory system compliance (Crs) in individuals with severe respiratory muscle weakness (RMW). Individuals with RMW resulting from neuromuscular disease or quadriplegia (n=12) and healthy controls (n=12) underwent pulmonary function testing and the measurement ofCrsat baseline, immediately after, 1 h after and 2 h after a single standardised session of LVR. The LVR session involved 10 consecutive supramaximal lung inflations with a manual resuscitation bag to the highest tolerable mouth pressure or a maximum of 50 cmH2O. Each LVR inflation was followed by brief breath-hold and a maximal expiration to residual volume. At baseline, individuals with RMW had lowerCrsthan controls (37±5 cmH2Oversus109±10 mL·cmH2O−1, p<0.001). Immediately after LVR,Crsincreased by 39.5±9.8% to 50±7 mL·cmH2O−1in individuals with RMW (p<0.05), while no significant change occurred in controls (p=0.23). At 1 h and 2 h post-treatment, there were no within-group differences inCrscompared to baseline (all p>0.05). LVR had no significant effect on measures of pulmonary function at any time point in either group (all p>0.05). During inflations, mean arterial pressure decreased significantly relative to baseline by 10.4±2.8 mmHg and 17.3±3.0 mmHg in individuals with RMW and controls, respectively (both p<0.05). LVR acutely increasesCrsin individuals with RMW. However, the high airway pressures during inflations cause reductions in mean arterial pressure that should be considered when applying this technique.
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".