Clinical risk factors for increased respiratory drive in intubated hypoxemic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is very limited evidence identifying factors that increase respiratory drive in hypoxemic intubated patients. Most physiological determinants of respiratory drive cannot be directly assessed at the bedside (e.g., neural inputs from chemo- or mechano-receptors), but clinical risk factors commonly measured in intubated patients could be correlated with increased drive. We aimed to identify clinical risk factors independently associated with increased respiratory drive in intubated hypoxemic patients. Methods We analyzed the physiological dataset from a multicenter trial on intubated hypoxemic patients on pressure support (PS). Patients with simultaneous assessment of the inspiratory drop in airway pressure at 0.1-s during an occlusion ( P 0.1 ) and risk factors for increased respiratory drive on day 1 were included. We evaluated the independent correlation of the following clinical risk factors for increased drive with P 0.1 : severity of lung injury (unilateral vs. bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, PaO 2 /FiO 2 , ventilatory ratio); arterial blood gases (PaO 2 , PaCO 2 and pHa); sedation (RASS score and drug type); SOFA score; arterial lactate; ventilation settings (PEEP, level of PS, addition of sigh breaths). Results Two-hundred seventeen patients were included. Clinical risk factors independently correlated with higher P 0.1 were bilateral infiltrates (increase ratio [IR] 1.233, 95%CI 1.047–1.451, p = 0.012); lower PaO 2 /FiO 2 (IR 0.998, 95%CI 0.997–0.999, p = 0.004); higher ventilatory ratio (IR 1.538, 95%CI 1.267–1.867, p < 0.001); lower pHa (IR 0.104, 95%CI 0.024–0.464, p = 0.003). Higher PEEP was correlated with lower P 0.1 (IR 0.951, 95%CI 0.921–0.982, p = 0.002), while sedation depth and drugs were not associated with P 0.1 . Conclusions Independent clinical risk factors for higher respiratory drive in intubated hypoxemic patients include the extent of lung edema and of ventilation-perfusion mismatch, lower pHa, and lower PEEP, while sedation strategy does not affect drive. These data underline the multifactorial nature of increased respiratory drive.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".