Mechanical Ventilation–induced Diaphragm Atrophy Strongly Impacts Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Diaphragm dysfunction worsens outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, but the clinical impact of potentially preventable changes in diaphragm structure and function caused by mechanical ventilation is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether diaphragm atrophy developing during mechanical ventilation leads to prolonged ventilation. METHODS: Diaphragm thickness was measured daily by ultrasound in adults requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; inspiratory effort was assessed by thickening fraction. The primary outcome was time to liberation from ventilation. Secondary outcomes included complications (reintubation, tracheostomy, prolonged ventilation, or death). Associations were adjusted for age, severity of illness, sepsis, sedation, neuromuscular blockade, and comorbidity. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 211 patients enrolled, 191 had two or more diaphragm thickness measurements. Thickness decreased more than 10% in 78 patients (41%) by median Day 4 (interquartile range, 3-5). Development of decreased thickness was associated with a lower daily probability of liberation from ventilation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.87; per 10% decrease), prolonged ICU admission (adjusted duration ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.29-2.27), and a higher risk of complications (adjusted odds ratio, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.34-6.72). Development of increased thickness (n = 47; 24%) also predicted prolonged ventilation (adjusted duration ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.00-1.90). Decreasing thickness was related to abnormally low inspiratory effort; increasing thickness was related to excessive effort. Patients with thickening fraction between 15% and 30% (similar to breathing at rest) during the first 3 days had the shortest duration of ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Diaphragm atrophy developing during mechanical ventilation strongly impacts clinical outcomes. Targeting an inspiratory effort level similar to that of healthy subjects at rest might accelerate liberation from ventilation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".