Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diaphragm weakness can impact survival and increases comorbidities in ventilated patients. Mechanical ventilation is linked to diaphragm dysfunction through several mechanisms of injury, referred to as myotrauma. By monitoring diaphragm activity and titrating ventilator settings, the critical care clinician can have a direct impact on diaphragm injury. RECENT FINDINGS: Both the absence of diaphragm activity and excessive inspiratory effort can result in diaphragm muscle weakness, and recent evidence demonstrates that a moderate level of diaphragm activity during mechanical ventilation improves ICU outcome. This supports the hypothesis that by avoiding ventilator overassistance and underassistance, the clinician can implement a diaphragm-protective ventilation strategy. Furthermore, eccentric diaphragm contractions and end-expiratory shortening could impact diaphragm strength as well. This review describes these potential targets for diaphragm protective ventilation. SUMMARY: A ventilator strategy that results in appropriate levels of diaphragm activity has the potential to be diaphragm-protective and improve clinical outcome. Monitoring respiratory effort during mechanical ventilation is becoming increasingly important.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".