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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The estimation of pleural pressure with esophageal manometry has been used for decades, and it has been a fertile area of physiology research in healthy subject as well as during mechanical ventilation in patients with lung injury. However, its scarce adoption in clinical practice takes its roots from the (false) ideas that it requires expertise with years of training, that the values obtained are not reliable due to technical challenges or discrepant methods of calculation, and that measurement of esophageal pressure has not proved to benefit patient outcomes. Despites these criticisms, esophageal manometry could contribute to better monitoring, optimization, and personalization of mechanical ventilation from the acute initial phase to the weaning period. This review aims to provide a comprehensive but comprehensible guide addressing the technical aspects of esophageal catheter use, its application in different clinical situations and conditions, and an update on the state of the art with recent studies on this topic and on remaining questions and ways for improvement.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it