Diaphragm function in acute respiratory failure and the potential role of phrenic nerve stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review was to describe the risk factors for developing diaphragm dysfunction, discuss the monitoring techniques for diaphragm activity and function, and introduce potential strategies to incorporate diaphragm protection into conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: It is increasingly apparent that an approach that addresses diaphragm-protective ventilations goals is needed to optimize ventilator management and improve patient outcomes. Ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD) is common and is associated with increased ICU length of stay, prolonged weaning and increased mortality. Over-assistance, under-assistance and patient-ventilator dyssynchrony may have important downstream clinical consequences related to VIDD. Numerous monitoring techniques are available to assess diaphragm function, including respiratory system pressures, oesophageal manometry, diaphragm ultrasound and electromyography. Novel techniques including phrenic nerve stimulation may facilitate the achievement of lung and diaphragm-protective goals for mechanical ventilation. SUMMARY: Diaphragm protection is an important consideration in optimizing ventilator management in patients with acute respiratory failure. The delicate balance between lung and diaphragm-protective goals is challenging. Phrenic nerve stimulation may be uniquely situated to achieve and balance these two commonly conflicting goals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".