MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213600031 · doi:10.1186/s12931-021-01880-z

Comparison of airway pressures and expired gas washout for nasal high flow versus CPAP in child airway replicas

2021· article· en· W3213600031 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelvin Duong, Michelle Noga, Joanna E. MacLean, Warren H. Finlay, Andrew R. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersLung Association, Alberta and NWT
KeywordsMedicineContinuous positive airway pressureAnesthesiaAirwayNasal cannulaWashoutCannulaObstructive sleep apneaPositive pressureBreathingPositive end-expiratory pressureMechanical ventilationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background For children and adults, the standard treatment for obstructive sleep apnea is the delivery of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Though effective, CPAP masks can be uncomfortable to patients, contributing to adherence concerns. Recently, nasal high flow (NHF) therapy has been investigated as an alternative, especially in CPAP-intolerant children. The present study aimed to compare and contrast the positive airway pressures and expired gas washout generated by NHF versus CPAP in child nasal airway replicas. Methods NHF therapy was investigated at a flow rate of 20 L/min and compared to CPAP at 5 cmH 2 O and 10 cmH 2 O for 10 nasal airway replicas, built from computed tomography scans of children aged 4–8 years. NHF was delivered with three different high flow nasal cannula models provided by the same manufacturer, and CPAP was delivered with a sealed nasal mask. Tidal breathing through each replica was imposed using a lung simulator, and airway pressure at the trachea was recorded over time. For expired gas washout measurements, carbon dioxide was injected at the lung simulator, and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO 2 ) was measured at the trachea. Changes in EtCO 2 compared to baseline values (no intervention) were assessed. Results NHF therapy generated an average positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5.17 ± 2.09 cmH 2 O (mean ± SD, n = 10), similar to PEEP of 4.95 ± 0.03 cmH 2 O generated by nominally 5 cmH 2 O CPAP. Variation in tracheal pressure was higher between airway replicas for NHF compared to CPAP. EtCO 2 decreased from baseline during administration of NHF, whereas it increased during CPAP. No statistical difference in tracheal pressure nor EtCO 2 was found between the three high flow nasal cannulas. Conclusion In child airway replicas, NHF at 20 L/min generated average PEEP similar to CPAP at 5 cm H 2 O. Variation in tracheal pressure was higher between airway replicas for NHF than for CPAP. The delivery of NHF yielded expired gas washout, whereas CPAP impeded expired gas washout due to the increased dead space of the sealed mask.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory ResearchSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207