An implantable soft robotic ventilator augments inspiration in a pig model of respiratory insufficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Severe diaphragm dysfunction can lead to respiratory failure, requiring permanent mechanical ventilation. Permanent tethering to a mechanical ventilator via a patient’s mouth or tracheostomy can interfere with quality of life and autonomy by hindering activities like speech and swallowing. We present a diaphragm assist system that intervenes internally at the diaphragm as opposed to the mouth. By implanting contractile, soft robotic actuators above the diaphragm to push downwards and augment diaphragm motion during inspiration, this diaphragm assist system functions as an implantable ventilator. We demonstrate the proof-of-concept feasibility of this system to augment physiological metrics of ventilation in an in vivo porcine model of varied respiratory insufficiency. Synchronized actuation of the assist system with native respiratory effort augmented the tidal volume by up to a 100 mL increase and was capable of improving minute ventilation into a normal range. The diaphragm assist system has the potential to provide a new therapeutic ventilation option that aims to restore respiratory performance without sacrificing quality of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".