MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809727892 · doi:10.4187/respcare.06151

Stress Index Can Be Accurately and Reliably Assessed by Visually Inspecting Ventilator Waveforms

2018· article· en· W2809727892 on OpenAlexaff
Xiu-Mei Sun, Guangqiang Chen, Kai Chen, Yumei Wang, Xuan He, Hua-Wei Huang, Xu-Ying Luo, Chunmei Wang, Zhonghua Shi, Ming Xu, Lü Chen, Eddy Fan, Zhou Jian-xin

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWaveformCohen's kappaAirwayBiomedical engineeringVentilation (architecture)Sensitivity (control systems)Visual inspectionStatisticsMathematicsSurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stress index provides a noninvasive approach to detect injurious ventilation patterns and to personalize ventilator settings. Obtaining the stress index (SI), however, requires quantitatively analyzing the shape of pressure-time curve with dedicated instruments or a specific ventilator, which may encumber its clinical implementation. We hypothesized that the SI could be qualitatively determined through a visual inspection of ventilator waveforms. METHODS: Thirty-six adult subjects undergoing volume controlled ventilation without spontaneous breathing were enrolled. For each subject, 2 trained clinicians visually inspected the pressure-time curve directly from the ventilator screen. They then qualitatively categorized the shape of pressure-time curve as linear, a downward concavity, or an upward concavity at the bedside. We simultaneously recorded airway pressure and flow signals using a dedicated instrument. A quantitative off-line analysis was performed to calculate the SI using specific research software. This quantitative analysis of the SI served as the reference method for classifying the shape of the pressure-time curve (ie, linear, a downward concavity, or an upward concavity). We compared the SI categorized by visual inspection with that by the reference. RESULTS: We obtained 200 SI assessments of pressure-time curves, among which 125 (63%) were linear, 55 (27%) were a downward concavity, and 20 (10%) were an upward concavity as determined by the reference method. The overall accuracy of visual inspection and weighted kappa statistic (95% CI) was 93% (88-96%) and 0.88 (0.82-0.94), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity to distinguish a downward concavity from a linear shape were 91% and 98%, respectively. The respective sensitivity and specificity to distinguish an upward concavity from a linear shape were 95% and 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Visual inspection of the pressure-time curve on the ventilator screen is a simple and reliable approach to assess SI at the bedside. This simplification may facilitate the implementation of SI in clinical practice to personalize mechanical ventilation. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03096106.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207