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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.122
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 teacher head, 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