MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158371823 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000005562

The Evaluation of a Noninvasive Respiratory Volume Monitor in Mechanically Ventilated Neonates and Infants

2021· article· en· W3158371823 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratory systemTidal volumeMechanical ventilationCalibrationCohortArtificial ventilationProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The respiratory volume monitor (RVM) (ExSpiron, Respiratory Motion Inc, Watertown, MA) uses thoracic impedance technology to noninvasively and continuously measure tidal volume (TV), respiratory rate (RR), and minute ventilation (MV). We aimed to validate the accuracy of the RVM to assess ventilation in neonates and infants by comparing it to spirometry. METHODS: We used the RVM and Respironics NM3 spirometer (Respironics NM3 Respiratory Profile Monitor, Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) to record simultaneous and continuous measurements of MV, TV, and RR. The RVM measurements, with and without external calibration, were compared to the Respironics NM3 spirometer using Bland-Altman analysis. The relative errors (Bland-Altman) between RVM and Respironics NM3 were calculated and used to compute individual patient bias, precision, and accuracy as the mean error, the standard deviation (SD) of the error, and the root mean square error. Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) were computed, and equivalence tests were performed. RESULTS: Forty patients were studied to compare the RVM and Respironics NM3 measurements. The mean difference (ie, bias) for MV was 1.8% with 95% LoA, defined as mean ± 1.96 SD, in the range of -12.1% to 15.7%. Similarly, the mean difference (ie, bias) for TV and RR was 1.2% (95% LoA, -11.0% to 13.5%) and 0.6% (95% LoA, -3.7% to 5.0%), respectively. The mean measurement precision of the RVM relative to the Respironics NM3 for MV, TV, and RR was 10.8%, 8.9%, and 8.4%, respectively. The mean measurement accuracy for MV, TV, and RR across patients was 11.0%, 9.7%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate that the RVM measures TV and MV in this cohort with an average relative error of 11% when using patient calibration and 16.9% without patient calibration. The average relative error of RR was 7.1%. The RVM provides accurate measurement of RR, TV, and MV in mechanically ventilated neonates and infants.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207