MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111013623 · doi:10.4187/respcare.08223

Identifying Subjects at Risk for Diaphragm Atrophy During Mechanical Ventilation Using Routinely Available Clinical Data

2020· article· en· W3111013623 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Urner, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Stefannie Vorona, Lü Chen, Michael C. Sklar, Martin Dres, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Laurent Brochard, Niall D. Ferguson, Eddy Fan, Ewan C. Goligher

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpontaneous breathing trialContractilityMechanical ventilationDiaphragmatic breathingDiaphragm (acoustics)AtrophyInternal medicineOdds ratioCardiologyReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionVentilation (architecture)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic respiratory effort during mechanical ventilation is an important determinant of patient outcome, but direct measurement of diaphragmatic contractility requires specialized instrumentation and technical expertise. We sought to determine whether routinely collected clinical variables can predict diaphragmatic contractility and stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on diaphragm ultrasound in mechanically ventilated subjects. Clinical variables, such as breathing frequency, ventilator settings, and blood gases, were recorded longitudinally. Machine learning techniques were used to identify variables predicting diaphragm contractility and stratifying the risk of diaphragm atrophy (> 10% decrease in thickness from baseline). Performance of the variables was evaluated in mixed-effects logistic regression and random-effects tree models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Measurements were available for 761 study days in 191 subjects, of whom 73 (38%) developed diaphragm atrophy. No routinely collected clinical variable, alone or in combination, could accurately predict either diaphragm contractility or the development of diaphragm atrophy (model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.63-0.75). The risk of diaphragm atrophy was not significantly different according to the presence or absence of patient-triggered breaths (38.3% vs 38.6%; odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.05-2.03). Diaphragm thickening fraction < 15% during either of the first 2 d of the study was associated with a higher risk of atrophy (44.6% vs 26.1%; odds ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.05-4.95). CONCLUSIONS: Diaphragmatic contractility and the risk of diaphragm atrophy could not be reliably determined from routinely collected clinical variables and ventilator settings. A single measurement of diaphragm thickening fraction measured within 48 h of initiating mechanical ventilation can be used to stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy during mechanical ventilation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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