Prevalence of Complete Airway Closure According to Body Mass Index in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complete airway closure during expiration may underestimate alveolar pressure. It has been reported in cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), as well as in morbidly obese patients with healthy lungs. The authors hypothesized that complete airway closure was highly prevalent in obese ARDS and influenced the calculation of respiratory mechanics. METHODS: In a post hoc pooled analysis of two cohorts, ARDS patients were classified according to body mass index (BMI) terciles. Low-flow inflation pressure-volume curve and partitioned respiratory mechanics using esophageal manometry were recorded. The authors' primary aim was to compare the prevalence of complete airway closure according to BMI terciles. Secondary aims were to compare (1) respiratory system mechanics considering or not considering complete airway closure in their calculation, and (2) and partitioned respiratory mechanics according to BMI. RESULTS: Among the 51 patients analyzed, BMI was less than 30 kg/m2 in 18, from 30 to less than 40 in 16, and greater than or equal to 40 in 17. Prevalence of complete airway closure was 41% overall (95% CI, 28 to 55; 21 of 51 patients), and was lower in the lowest (22% [3 to 41]; 4 of 18 patients) than in the highest BMI tercile (65% [42 to 87]; 11 of 17 patients). Driving pressure and elastances of the respiratory system and of the lung were higher when complete airway closure was not taken into account in their calculation. End-expiratory esophageal pressure (ρ = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82]; P < 0.001), but not chest wall elastance, was associated with BMI, whereas elastance of the lung was negatively correlated with BMI (ρ = -0.27 [95% CI, -0.56 to -0.10]; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of complete airway closure was high in ARDS and should be taken into account when calculating respiratory mechanics, especially in the most morbidly obese patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".