MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133811326 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000003726

Reverse Triggering Dyssynchrony 24 h after Initiation of Mechanical Ventilation

2021· article· en· W3133811326 on OpenAlexaff
Ricard Mellado Artigas, L. Felipe Damiani, Thomas Piraino, Tài Pham, Lü Chen, Michela Rauseo, Irene Telías, Ibrahim Soliman, Detajin Junhasavasdikul, César Santis, Orla Smith, Ewan C. Goligher, Norman Comtois, Christer A. Sinderby, Leo Heunks, Laurent Brochard

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reverse triggering is a delayed asynchronous contraction of the diaphragm triggered by passive insufflation by the ventilator in sedated mechanically ventilated patients. The incidence of reverse triggering is unknown. This study aimed at determining the incidence of reverse triggering in critically ill patients under controlled ventilation. METHODS: In this ancillary study, patients were continuously monitored with a catheter measuring the electrical activity of the diaphragm. A method for automatic detection of reverse triggering using electrical activity of the diaphragm was developed in a derivation sample and validated in a subsequent sample. The authors assessed the predictive value of the software. In 39 recently intubated patients under assist-control ventilation, a 1-h recording obtained 24 h after intubation was used to determine the primary outcome of the study. The authors also compared patients' demographics, sedation depth, ventilation settings, and time to transition to assisted ventilation or extubation according to the median rate of reverse triggering. RESULTS: The positive and negative predictive value of the software for detecting reverse triggering were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.81) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98). Using a threshold of 1 μV of electrical activity to define diaphragm activation, median reverse triggering rate was 8% (range, 0.1 to 75), with 44% (17 of 39) of patients having greater than or equal to 10% of breaths with reverse triggering. Using a threshold of 3 μV, 26% (10 of 39) of patients had greater than or equal to 10% reverse triggering. Patients with more reverse triggering were more likely to progress to an assisted mode or extubation within the following 24 h (12 of 39 [68%]) vs. 7 of 20 [35%]; P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Reverse triggering detection based on electrical activity of the diaphragm suggests that this asynchrony is highly prevalent at 24 h after intubation under assist-control ventilation. Reverse triggering seems to occur during the transition phase between deep sedation and the onset of patient triggering.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207