Impact of Spontaneous Breathing Trial on Work of Breathing Indices Derived From Esophageal Pressure, Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm, and Oxygen Consumption in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to characterize the behavior of 3 components of respiratory muscle function during mechanical ventilation weaning in children to better understand the respective impact of a spontaneous breathing trial on ventilatory mechanical action (esophageal pressure [P es ], ventilatory demand (electrical activity of the diaphragm [EA di ]), and oxygen consumption. METHODS: This was a prospective single-center study. All children > 1 months and <18 y old who were intubated and on mechanical ventilation, and who were hospitalized in the pediatric ICU were eligible. Subjects considered as ready to extubate were included. Simultaneous recordings of oxygen consumption, P es , and EA di were performed during 3 steps: before, during, and after the spontaneous breathing test. RESULTS: Twenty subjects (median age, 5.5 mo) were included. Half of them were admitted for a respiratory cause. The increase in P es swings and esophageal pressure-time product during the spontaneous breathing trial was not significant ( P = .33 and P = .75, respectively), and a similar trend was observed with peak EA di ( P = .06). Oxygen consumption obtained by indirect calorimetry was stable in the 3 conditions ( P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: In these children who were critically ill, a spontaneous breathing trial induced a moderate and nonsignificant increase in work of breathing, as reflected by the respiratory drive with EA di and respiratory mechanics with P es . However, indirect calorimetry did not seem to be a sensitive tool to assess respiratory muscle function during the weaning phase in children who were on mechanical ventilation, especially when work of breathing was slightly increased.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".