Short-Term Effects of an Active Heat-and-Moisture Exchanger During Invasive Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Humidification is a standard of care during invasive mechanical ventilation. Two types of devices are used for this purpose: heated humidifiers and heat-and-moisture exchangers (HME). AIM: To compare the short-term physiologic effects of an active HME, with those of heated humidifiers and HMEs in terms of respiratory effort, ventilatory pattern, and arterial blood gases during invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover study with 3 different devices in 15 stable subjects who had a tracheostomy and were ventilator-dependent. Transdiaphragmatic pressure, ventilatory pattern, arterial blood gases, and dyspnea scale were recorded at baseline and at the end of a 20-min period with each device. RESULTS: Compared with heated humidifiers, the active HME was associated with higher diaphragmatic pressure-time product per minute (117.10 [interquartile range {IQR} 34.58–298.60]) versus 80.86 (IQR, 25.46–110.55) cm H 2 O×s/min, P = .01), higher P aCO 2 (48.50 [IQR, 40.65–53.70] vs 39.60 [IQR, 37.50–49.95]) mm Hg, P = .02) and lower pH (7.41 [IQR, 7.36–7.49] vs 7.45 [IQR, 7.40–7.51], P = .030) without any significant difference in ventilatory pattern. A significantly worse dyspnea scale score (active HME, 3 (2–4) vs heated humidifiers: 4 (3–5); P = .009) was also observed. No significant differences were seen between active HME and HME. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that, compared with the heated humidifiers, the use of the active HME or the HME increased inspiratory effort, P aCO 2 , pH, and dyspnea in stable subjects who were tracheostomized and ventilator-dependent. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02499796.)
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".