MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124838846 · doi:10.1186/s12890-021-01411-y

The use of electrical impedance tomography for individualized ventilation strategy in COVID-19: a case report

2021· article· en· W3124838846 on OpenAlexaff
Zhanqi Zhao, Jin-Shou Zhang, Ying-Tzu Chen, Hou-Tai Chang, Yeong-Long Hsu, Inéz Frerichs, Andy Adler

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pulmonary Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersFar Eastern Memorial Hospital
KeywordsMedicineElectrical impedance tomographyIntensive care medicineMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)Acute respiratory distressCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Psychological interventionProne positionPositive pressure ventilationARDSPositive end-expiratory pressurePresentation (obstetrics)TomographyLungRadiologyRespiratory systemInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical management of COVID-19 requires close monitoring of lung function. While computed tomography (CT) offers ideal way to identify the phenotypes, it cannot monitor the patient response to therapeutic interventions. We present a case of ventilation management for a COVID-19 patient where electrical impedance tomography (EIT) was used to personalize care. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, required invasive mechanical ventilation, and was subsequently weaned. EIT was used multiple times: to titrate the positive end-expiratory pressure, understand the influence of body position, and guide the support levels during weaning and after extubation. We show how EIT provides bedside monitoring of the patient´s response to various therapeutic interventions and helps guide treatments. CONCLUSION: EIT provides unique information that may help the ventilation management in the pandemic 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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pulmonary MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207