Information conveyed by electrical diaphragmatic activity during unstressed, stressed and assisted spontaneous breathing: a physiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The electrical activity of the crural diaphragm (Eadi), a surrogate of respiratory drive, can now be measured at the bedside in mechanically ventilated patients with a specific catheter. The expected range of Eadi values under stressed or assisted spontaneous breathing is unknown. This study explored Eadi values in healthy subjects during unstressed (baseline), stressed (with a resistance) and assisted spontaneous breathing. The relation between Eadi and inspiratory effort was analyzed. METHODS: Thirteen healthy male volunteers were included in this randomized crossover study. Eadi and esophageal pressure (Peso) were recorded during unstressed and stressed spontaneous breathing and under assisted ventilation delivered in pressure support (PS) at low and high assist levels and in neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA). Overall eight different situations were assessed in each participant (randomized order). Peak, mean and integral of Eadi, breathing pattern, esophageal pressure-time product (PTPeso) and work of breathing (WOB) were calculated offline. RESULTS: ratio was 16.8 [15.6-27.9]%. Compared to baseline, respiratory rate and minute ventilation were decreased during stressed non-assisted breathing, whereas peak Eadi and PTPeso were increased. During unstressed assisted breathing, peak Eadi decreased during high-level PS compared to unstressed non-assisted breathing and to NAVA (p = 0.047). During stressed breathing, peak Eadi was lower during all assisted ventilation modalities compared to stressed non-assisted breathing. During assisted ventilation, across the different conditions, peak Eadi changed significantly, whereas PTPeso and WOB/min were not significantly modified. Finally, Eadi signal was still present even when Peso signal was suppressed due to high assist levels. CONCLUSION: Eadi analysis provides complementary information compared to respiratory pattern and to Peso monitoring, particularly in the presence of high assist levels. Trial registration The study was registered as NCT01818219 in clinicaltrial.gov. Registered 28 February 2013.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".