MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968127180 · doi:10.1186/s13613-019-0564-1

Information conveyed by electrical diaphragmatic activity during unstressed, stressed and assisted spontaneous breathing: a physiological study

2019· article· en· W2968127180 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeVentilation (architecture)CardiologySpontaneous breathing trialMechanical ventilationInternal medicineRespiratory rateRespiratory physiologyWork of breathingRespiratory systemHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.271 · 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