Transpulmonary pressure: importance and limits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Transpulmonary pressure (PL) is computed as the difference between airway pressure and pleural pressure and separates the pressure delivered to the lung from the one acting on chest wall and abdomen. Pleural pressure is measured as esophageal pressure (PES) through dedicated catheters provided with esophageal balloons. We discuss the role of PL in assessing the effects of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In the supine position, directly measured PL represents the pressure acting on the alveoli and airways. Because there is a pressure gradient in the pleural space from the non-dependent to the dependent zones, the pressure in the esophagus probably represents the pressure at a mid-level between sternal and vertebral regions. For this reason, it has been proposed to set the end-expiratory pressure in order to get a positive value of PL. This improves oxygenation and compliance. PL can also be estimated from airway pressure plateau and the ratio of lung to respiratory elastance (elastance-derived method). Some data suggest that this latter calculation may better estimate PL in the nondependent lung zones, at risk for hyperinflation. Elastance-derived PL at end-inspiration (PLend-insp) may be a good surrogate of end-inspiratory lung stress for the “baby lung”, at least in non-obese patients. Limiting end-inspiratory PL to 20–25 cmH2O appears physiologically sound to mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Last, lung driving pressure (∆PL) reflects the tidal distending pressure. Changes in PL may also be assessed during assisted breathing to take into account the additive effects of spontaneous breathing and mechanical breaths on lung distension. In summary, despite limitations, assessment of PL allows a deeper understanding of the risk of VILI and may potentially help tailor ventilator settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".