Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Esophageal manometry has shown its usefulness to estimate transpulmonary pressure, that is lung stress, and the intensity of spontaneous effort in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, clinical uptake of esophageal manometry in ICU is still low. Thus, the purpose of review is to describe technical tips to adequately measure esophageal pressure at the bedside, and then update the most important clinical applications of esophageal manometry in ICU. RECENT FINDINGS: Each esophageal balloon has its own nonstressed volume and it should be calibrated properly to measure pleural pressure accurately: transpulmonary pressure calculated on absolute esophageal pressure reflects values in the lung regions adjacent to the esophageal balloon (i.e. dependent to middle lung). Inspiratory transpulmonary pressure calculated from airway plateau pressure and the chest wall to respiratory system elastance ratio reasonably reflects lung stress in the nondependent 'baby' lung, at highest risk of hyperinflation. Also esophageal pressure can be used to detect and minimize patient self-inflicted lung injury. SUMMARY: Esophageal manometry is not a complicated technique. There is a large potential to improve clinical outcome in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, acting as an early detector of risk of lung injury from mechanical ventilation and vigorous spontaneous effort.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".