Respiratory Drive in Critically Ill Patients. Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory drive, the intensity of the respiratory center's output, determines the effort exerted in each breath. The increasing awareness of the adverse effects of both strong and weak respiratory efforts during mechanical ventilation on patient outcome brings attention to the respiratory drive of the critically ill patient. Critical illness can affect patients' respiratory drive through multiple pathways, mainly operating through three feedback systems: cortical, metabolic, and chemical. The chemical feedback system, defined as the response of the respiratory center's output to changes in arterial blood gases and pH, is one of the most important determinants of respiratory drive. The purpose of this state-of-the-art review is to describe the determinants of respiratory drive in critically ill patients, review the tools available to assess respiratory drive at the bedside, and discuss the implications of altered respiratory drive during mechanical ventilation. An analysis that relates arterial carbon dioxide levels with brain's response to this stimulus will be presented, contrasting the brain's responses to the patient's ability to generate effective alveolar ventilation, both during unassisted breathing and with different modes of ventilatory assist. This analysis may facilitate comprehension of the pathophysiology of respiratory drive in critically ill patients. As we aim to avoid both over- and under-assistance with mechanical ventilation, considering the patients' respiratory drive at the bedside may improve clinical assessment and management of the patient and the ventilator.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".