Hemodynamic effects of high frequency oscillatory ventilation with volume guarantee in a piglet model of respiratory distress syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory failure is a common condition faced by critically ill neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). High frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is often used for neonates with refractory respiratory failure related to RDS. Volume guarantee (VG) mode has been added to some HFOV ventilators for providing consistent tidal volume. We sought to examine the impact of adding the VG mode during HFOV on systemic and cerebral hemodynamics, which has not been studied to date. A neonatal piglet model of moderate to severe RDS was induced by saline lavage. Piglets (full term, age 1-3 days, weight 1.5-2.4 kg) were randomized to have RDS induced and receive either HFOV or HFOV+VG (n = 8/group) or sham-operation (n = 6) without RDS. Cardiac function measured by a Millar® catheter placed in the left ventricle as well as systemic and carotid hemodynamic and oxygen tissue saturation parameters were collected over 240 min of ventilation. Mean airway pressure, alveolar-arterial oxygen difference and left ventricular cardiac index of piglets on HFOV vs. HFOV+VG were not significantly different during the experimental period. Right common carotid artery flow index by in-situ ultrasonic flow measurement and cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (near-infrared spectroscopy) significantly decreased in HFOV+VG at 240 min compared to HFOV (14 vs. 31 ml/kg/min, and 30% vs. 43%, respectively; p<0.05). There were no significant differences in lung, brain and heart tissue markers of oxidative stress, ischemia and inflammation. HFOV+VG compared to HFOV was associated with similar left ventricular function, however HFOV+VG had a negative effect on cerebral blood flow and oxygenation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".