MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028717465 · doi:10.4187/respcare.07410

Assessing Diaphragmatic Function

2020· review· en· W3028717465 on OpenAlexafffund
Tom Schepens, Samira Fard, Ewan C. Goligher

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEuropean Respiratory Society
KeywordsMedicineDiaphragm (acoustics)Mechanical ventilationDiaphragmatic breathingWeaknessIntensive care medicineMuscle atrophyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAtrophyAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diaphragm is vulnerable to injury during mechanical ventilation, and diaphragm dysfunction is both a marker of severity of illness and a predictor of poor patient outcome in the ICU. A combination of factors can result in diaphragm weakness. Both insufficient and excessive diaphragmatic contractile effort can cause atrophy or injury, and recent evidence suggests that targeting an appropriate amount of diaphragm activity during mechanical ventilation has the potential to mitigate diaphragm dysfunction. Several monitoring tools can be used to assess diaphragm activity and function during mechanical ventilation, including pressure-derived parameters, electromyography, and ultrasound. This review details these techniques and presents the rationale for a diaphragm-protective ventilation strategy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations56
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207