Airway Occlusion Pressure As an Estimate of Respiratory Drive and Inspiratory Effort during Assisted Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Monitoring and controlling respiratory drive and effort may help to minimize lung and diaphragm injury. Airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) is a noninvasive measure of respiratory drive. Objectives To determine 1) the validity of “ventilator” P0.1 (P0.1vent) displayed on the screen as a measure of drive, 2) the ability of P0.1 to detect potentially injurious levels of effort, and 3) how P0.1vent displayed by different ventilators compares to a “reference” P0.1 (P0.1ref) measured from airway pressure recording during an occlusion. Methods Analysis of three studies in patients, one in healthy subjects, under assisted ventilation, and a bench study with six ventilators. P0.1vent was validated against measures of drive (electrical activity of the diaphragm and muscular pressure over time) and P0.1ref. Performance of P0.1ref and P0.1vent to detect predefined potentially injurious effort was tested using derivation and validation datasets using esophageal pressure–time product as the reference standard. Measurements and Main Results P0.1vent correlated well with measures of drive and with the esophageal pressure–time product (within-subjects R2 = 0.8). P0.1ref >3.5 cm H2O was 80% sensitive and 77% specific for detecting high effort (≥200 cm H2O ⋅ s ⋅ min−1); P0.1ref ≤1.0 cm H2O was 100% sensitive and 92% specific for low effort (≤50 cm H2O ⋅ s ⋅ min−1). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for P0.1vent to detect potentially high and low effort were 0.81 and 0.92, respectively. Bench experiments showed a low mean bias for P0.1vent compared with P0.1ref for most ventilators but precision varied; in patients, precision was lower. Ventilators estimating P0.1vent without occlusions could underestimate P0.1ref. Conclusions P0.1 is a reliable bedside tool to assess respiratory drive and detect potentially injurious inspiratory effort.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".