New physiological insights in ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the setting of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), classical physiological concept about ventilation become challenging. Ventilation may exert detrimental hemodynamic effects that must be balanced with its expected benefits. The risks of hyperventilation have been thoroughly addressed, even questioning the need for ventilation, emphasizing the need to prioritize chest compression quality. However, ventilation is mandatory for adequate gas exchange as soon as CPR is prolonged. Factors affecting the capability of chest compressions to produce alveolar ventilation are poorly understood. In this review, we discuss the conventional interpretation of interactions between ventilation and circulation, from the perspective of novel physiological observations. RECENT FINDINGS: Many patients with cardiac arrest exhibit 'intrathoracic airway closure.' This phenomenon is associated with lung volume reduction, impedes chest compressions to generate ventilation and overall limits the delivered ventilation. This phenomenon can be reversed by the application of small levels of positive end-expiratory pressure. Also, a novel interpretation of the capnogram can rate the magnitude of this phenomenon, contributing to clarify the physiological meaning of exhaled CO2 and may help assess the real amount of delivered ventilation. SUMMARY: Recent advances in the understanding of ventilatory physiology during CPR shows that capnogram analysis not only provides information on the quality of resuscitation but also on the amount of ventilation produced by chest compressions and on the total amount of 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".