MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214607626 · doi:10.1111/aor.14221

Diaphragm pacing in spinal cord injury can significantly decrease mechanical ventilation in multicenter prospective evaluation

2022· review· en· W4214607626 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Organs · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyMechanical ventilationSpinal cord injuryAnesthesiaDiaphragm (acoustics)Tidal volumeVentilation (architecture)Lead (geology)Spinal cordInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) can lead to dependence on mechanical ventilation (MV) with significant morbidity and mortality. The diaphragm pacing system (DPS) was developed as an alternative to MV. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-arm study of DPS in MV-dependent patients with high SCI and intact phrenic nerves. Following device acclimation, pacing effectiveness to provide ventilation was evaluated. The primary endpoint was the number who could use DPS to breathe for 4 continuous hours without MV. Secondary endpoints included the number of patients that could use DPS 24 h/day free of MV and the ability of DPS to maintain clinically acceptable tidal volume (Vt). In addition, we conducted a meta-analysis that included the prospective study along with data from four recently published studies to evaluate DPS hourly use. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were implanted in the prospective study. Most were male (77.4%) with a median time from injury to treatment of 28.3 (IQR: 12.1, 83.3) months. Four- and 24-h use occurred in 96.2% (95% CI: 87.0%, 99.5%) and 58.5% (95% CI: 44.1%, 74.9%), respectively. Four and 24-h results in the meta-analysis cohort (n = 196) exhibited similar results 92.2% (95% CI: 82.6%, 96.7%) and 52.7% (95% CI: 36.2%, 68.6%) using DPS for 4 and 24 h, respectively. DPS use significantly exceeded the calculated basal tidal volume requirements by a mean of 48.4% (95% CI: 37.0, 59.9%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in most ventilator-dependent patients, diaphragm pacing can effectively supplement or completely replace the need for MV and support basal metabolic requirements.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.303 · 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