MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046346613 · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/abab1b

Monitoring bronchoalveolar lavage with electrical impedance tomography: first experience in a patient with COVID-19

2020· article· en· W3046346613 on OpenAlexaff
Yingyun Fu, Rongrong Zou, Shouhong Wang, Junmin Wen, Lei Rong, Ming Tang, Baojun Yu, Fulan Cen, Zhanqi Zhao, Inéz Frerichs, Andy Adler, Yingxia Liu, Lei Liu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsBronchoalveolar lavageCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Electrical impedance tomography2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineTomographyComputed tomographyRadiologyPathologyInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Lung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Patients with the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) often have airway secretions that severely compromise ventilation. This study investigates electrical impedance tomography (EIT) monitoring of a therapeutic bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in a patient with COVID-19. APPROACH: A patient with COVID-19 developed acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation. He received regional BAL to remove mucus in the small airways (20 ml × 5). Regional ventilation changes before BAL, 30 min after and in the following days, were monitored with EIT. MAIN RESULTS: Regional ventilation worsened shortly after BAL and improved in the following days. The improvement of the oxygenation did not exactly match the ventilation improvement, which indicated a possible ventilation/perfusion mismatch. SIGNIFICANCE: Therapeutic BAL might improve regional ventilation for COVID-19 and EIT could be a useful tool at the bedside to monitor the ventilation treatment of COVID-19.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207