Physiologic Effects of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Healthy Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used in the management of acute and chronic respiratory failure. Little is known about the optimal settings for HFNC. This study was designed to assess the dose effect of HFNC on respiratory effort indexes and respiratory patterns in spontaneously breathing adults. METHODS: ], esophageal pressure-time product, and work of breathing). Secondary outcomes included breathing pattern parameters and blood gases. Dead-space ventilation and washout were calculated based on minute ventilation, breathing frequency, and Radford equations. RESULTS: < .001). Capillary [Formula: see text] was stable in all the tested conditions. The calculated dead-space ventilation was reduced by half with HFNC. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC did not significantly modify work of breathing in healthy subjects. However, a significant reduction in the minute volume was achieved, capillary [Formula: see text] remaining constant, which suggests a reduction in dead-space ventilation with flows > 20 L/min. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02495675).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".