MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978793344 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201902-0334oc

Potential for Lung Recruitment Estimated by the Recruitment-to-Inflation Ratio in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Clinical Trial

2019· article· en· W2978793344 on OpenAlexaff
Lü Chen, Lorenzo Del Sorbo, Domenico Luca Grieco, Detajin Junhasavasdikul, Nuttapol Rittayamai, Ibrahim Soliman, Michael C. Sklar, Michela Rauseo, Niall D. Ferguson, Eddy Fan, Jean-Christophe M. Richard, Laurent Brochard

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary complianceOxygenationPositive end-expiratory pressureAnesthesiaLung volumesRespiratory distressCompliance (psychology)Tidal volumeAirwayMechanical ventilationRespiratory systemLungCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome depends on recruitability. We propose a bedside approach to estimate recruitability accounting for the presence of complete airway closure. Objectives To validate a single-breath method for measuring recruited volume and test whether it differentiates patients with different responses to PEEP. Methods Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome were ventilated at 15 and 5 cm H2O of PEEP. Multiple pressure–volume curves were compared with a single-breath technique. Abruptly releasing PEEP (from 15 to 5 cm H2O) increases expired volume: the difference between this volume and the volume predicted by compliance at low PEEP (or above airway opening pressure) estimated the recruited volume by PEEP. This recruited volume divided by the effective pressure change gave the compliance of the recruited lung; the ratio of this compliance to the compliance at low PEEP gave the recruitment-to-inflation ratio. Response to PEEP was compared between high and low recruiters based on this ratio. Measurements and Main Results Forty-five patients were enrolled. Four patients had airway closure higher than high PEEP, and thus recruitment could not be assessed. In others, recruited volume measured by the experimental and the reference methods were strongly correlated (R2 = 0.798; P < 0.0001) with small bias (−21 ml). The recruitment-to-inflation ratio (median, 0.5; range, 0–2.0) correlated with both oxygenation at low PEEP and the oxygenation response; at PEEP 15, high recruiters had better oxygenation (P = 0.004), whereas low recruiters experienced lower systolic arterial pressure (P = 0.008). Conclusions A single-breath method quantifies recruited volume. The recruitment-to-inflation ratio might help to characterize lung recruitability at the bedside. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02457741).

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations400
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207