A Comparison of the Adjustable Ranges of Inspiratory Pressurization During Pressure Controlled Continuous Mandatory Ventilation of 5 ICU Ventilators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Faster inspiratory pressurization can improve patient–ventilator synchrony and reduce the patient's work of breathing during pressure controlled continuous mandatory (PC-CMV) ventilation. The characteristics of the pressurization ramp settings are not standardized across ventilators from different manufacturers. We performed a bench test of 5 models of ICU ventilators to examine the effects of pressurization ramp settings on the actual pressurization. METHODS: A twin-bellows lung model was used, in which one bellow simulates inspiratory muscle activity and the other simulates an adult normal lung model. We made the inspiratory effort by changing the tidal volume of the inspiratory muscle bellow. The effect of pressurization ramp settings on the performance of each ventilator was examined at 3 inspiratory effort levels (ie, none, ordinary, and strong). The pressurization ramp was set at 4 or 5 evenly divided steps from the minimum to maximum for each ventilator. The following parameters were measured: tidal volume, mean airway pressure, maximal inspiratory flow, time to maximal flow, and pressure–time products at 0.3 s (PTP 0.3 ) and 0.5 s (PTP 0.5 ) from the beginning of inspiration. PTP 0.3 and PTP 0.5 indicated levels of inspiratory pressurization. RESULTS: A proportional increase in PTP 0.3 and PTP 0.5 was observed with an increase in the pressurization ramp settings of the recent models of ventilators. PTP 0.3 and PTP 0.5 at ordinary and strong effort levels were similar in the recent models of ventilators. The actual adjustable ranges of PTP 0.3 and PTP 0.5 associated with change in the pressurization ramp settings differed between the 5 ventilators. CONCLUSIONS: The adjustable ranges of the pressurization were largely different among the different types of ventilators. The actual absolute inspiratory pressurization during PC-CMV varied between the different ventilators even at similar pressurization ramp settings. Users should be mindful of the differences in the pressurization ramp 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".