MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963563867 · doi:10.1186/s40635-019-0226-5

Alveolar dynamics during mechanical ventilation in the healthy and injured lung

2019· review· en· W2963563867 on OpenAlexafffund
Jana Grune, Arata Tabuchi, Wolfgang M. Kuebler

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine Experimental · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationLungVentilation (architecture)Intensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical ventilation is a life-saving therapy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, mechanical ventilation itself causes severe co-morbidities in that it can trigger ventilator-associated lung injury (VALI) in humans or ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) in experimental animal models. Therefore, optimization of ventilation strategies is paramount for the effective therapy of critical care patients. A major problem in the stratification of critical care patients for personalized ventilation settings, but even more so for our overall understanding of VILI, lies in our limited insight into the effects of mechanical ventilation at the actual site of injury, i.e., the alveolar unit. Unfortunately, global lung mechanics provide for a poor surrogate of alveolar dynamics and methods for the in-depth analysis of alveolar dynamics on the level of individual alveoli are sparse and afflicted by important limitations. With alveolar dynamics in the intact lung remaining largely a "black box," our insight into the mechanisms of VALI and VILI and the effectiveness of optimized ventilation strategies is confined to indirect parameters and endpoints of lung injury and mortality.In the present review, we discuss emerging concepts of alveolar dynamics including alveolar expansion/contraction, stability/instability, and opening/collapse. Many of these concepts remain still controversial, in part due to limitations of the different methodologies applied. We therefore preface our review with an overview of existing technologies and approaches for the analysis of alveolar dynamics, highlighting their individual strengths and limitations which may provide for a better appreciation of the sometimes diverging findings and interpretations. Joint efforts combining key technologies in identical models to overcome the limitations inherent to individual methodologies are needed not only to provide conclusive insights into lung physiology and alveolar dynamics, but ultimately to guide critical care patient therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine ExperimentalSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207