Oesophageal pressure as a surrogate of pleural pressure in mechanically ventilated patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Oesophageal pressure (Poes) is used to approximate pleural pressure (Ppl) and therefore to estimate transpulmonary pressure (PL). We aimed to compare oesophageal and regional pleural pressures and to calculate transpulmonary pressures in a prospective physiological study on lung transplant recipients during their stay in the intensive care unit of a tertiary university hospital. Methods Lung transplant recipients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and monitored by oesophageal manometry and dependent and nondependent pleural catheters were investigated during the post-operative period. We performed simultaneous short-time measurements and recordings of oesophageal manometry and pleural pressures. Expiratory and inspiratoryPLwere computed by subtracting regionalPplorPoesfrom airway pressure; inspiratoryPLwas also calculated with the elastance ratio method. Results 16 patients were included. Among them, 14 were analysed. Oesophageal pressures correlated with dependent and nondependent pleural pressures during expiration (R2=0.71, p=0.005 and R2=0.77, p=0.001, respectively) and during inspiration (R2=0.66 for both, p=0.01 and p=0.014, respectively).PLvalues calculated usingPoeswere close to those obtained from the dependent pleural catheter but higher than those obtained from the nondependent pleural catheter both during expiration and inspiration. Conclusions In ventilated lung transplant recipients, oesophageal manometry is well correlated with pleural pressure. The absolute value ofPoesis higher thanPplof nondependent lung regions and could therefore underestimate the highest level of lung stress in those at high risk of overinflation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".