MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094365463 · doi:10.1164/rccm.202005-1556oc

Role of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and Regional Transpulmonary Pressure in Asymmetrical Lung Injury

2020· article· en· W3094365463 on OpenAlexafffund
Luca Bastia, Doreen Engelberts, Kohei Osada, Bhushan H. Katira, L. Felipe Damiani, Takeshi Yoshida, Lü Chen, Niall D. Ferguson, Marcelo B. P. Amato, Martin Post, Brian P. Kavanagh, Laurent Brochard

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemSt. Michael's HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSickKids FoundationUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineTranspulmonary pressurePositive end-expiratory pressureLungAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)AirwayLung volumesCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Asymmetrical lung injury is a frequent clinical presentation. Regional distribution of Vt and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) could result in hyperinflation of the less-injured lung. The validity of esophageal pressure (Pes) is unknown. Objectives To compare, in asymmetrical lung injury, Pes with directly measured pleural pressures (Ppl) of both sides and investigate how PEEP impacts ventilation distribution and the regional driving transpulmonary pressure (inspiratory – expiratory). Methods Fourteen mechanically ventilated pigs with lung injury were studied. One lung was blocked while the contralateral one underwent surfactant lavage and injurious ventilation. Airway pressure and Pes were measured, as was Ppl in the dorsal and ventral pleural space adjacent to each lung. Distribution of ventilation was assessed by electrical impedance tomography. PEEP was studied through decremental steps. Measurements and Results Ventral and dorsal Ppl were similar between the injured and the noninjured lung across all PEEP levels. Dorsal Ppl and Pes were similar. The driving transpulmonary pressure was similar in the two lungs. Vt distribution between lungs was different at zero end-expiratory pressure (≈70% of Vt going in noninjured lung) owing to different respiratory system compliance (8.3 ml/cm H2O noninjured lung vs. 3.7 ml/cm H2O injured lung). PEEP at 10 cm H2O with transpulmonary pressure around zero homogenized Vt distribution opening the lungs. PEEP ≥16 cm H2O equalized distribution of Vt but with overdistension for both lungs. Conclusions Despite asymmetrical lung injury, Ppl between injured and noninjured lungs is equalized and esophageal pressure is a reliable estimate of dorsal Ppl. Driving transpulmonary pressure is similar for both lungs. Vt distribution results from regional respiratory system compliance. Moderate PEEP homogenizes Vt distribution between lungs without generating hyperinflation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207