Diaphragm echodensity in mechanically ventilated patients: a description of technique and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Acute increases in muscle sonographic echodensity reflect muscle injury. Diaphragm echodensity has not been measured in mechanically ventilated patients. We undertook to develop a technique to characterize changes in diaphragm echodensity during mechanical ventilation and to assess whether these changes are correlated with prolonged mechanical ventilation. Methods Diaphragm ultrasound images were prospectively collected in mechanically ventilated patients and in 10 young healthy subjects. Echodensity was quantified based on the right-skewed distribution of grayscale values (50th percentile, ED50; 85th percentile, ED85). Intra- and inter-analyzer measurement reproducibility was determined. Outcomes recorded included duration of ventilation and ICU complications (including reintubation, tracheostomy, prolonged ventilation, or death). Results Echodensity measurements were obtained serially in 34 patients comprising a total of 104 images. Baseline (admission) diaphragm ED85 was increased in mechanically ventilated patients compared to younger healthy subjects (median 56, interquartile range (IQR) 42–84, vs. 39, IQR 36–52, p = 0.04). Patients with an initial increase in median echodensity over time (≥ + 10 in ED50 from baseline) had fewer ventilator-free days to day 60 (n = 13, median 46, IQR 0–52) compared to patients without this increase (n = 21, median 53 days, IQR 49–56, unadjusted p = 0.03). Both decreases and increases in diaphragm thickness during mechanical ventilation were associated with increases in ED50 over time (adjusted p = 0.03, conditional R2 = 0.80) and the association between increase in ED50 and outcomes persisted after adjusting for changes in diaphragm thickness. Conclusions Many patients exhibit increased diaphragm echodensity at the outset of mechanical ventilation. Increases in diaphragm echodensity during the early course of mechanical ventilation are associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation. Both decreases and increases in diaphragm thickness during mechanical ventilation are associated with increased echodensity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".