The Relationship Between Esophageal Pressure and Diaphragm Thickening Fraction in Spontaneously Breathing Sedated Children: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diaphragm ultrasound is a novel alternative to esophageal pressure measurements in the evaluation of diaphragm function and activity, but data about its reliability in a pediatric setting are lacking. We aimed to compare the esophageal pressure swing (∆P es , gold standard) with the diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) as a measure of inspiratory effort in sedated children. Additionally, we studied the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on the end-expiratory thickness of the diaphragm (DT ee ). DESIGN: Prospective open-label non-randomized interventional physiological cohort study. SETTING: Operating room in tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS: Children 28 days to 13 years old scheduled for elective surgery with general anesthesia, spontaneously breathing through a laryngeal mask airway, were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were disorders or previous surgery of the diaphragm, anticipated difficult airway or acute cardiopulmonary disease. All measurements were performed prior to surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were subjected to different levels of respiratory load, PEEP and anesthetic depth in a total of seven respiratory conditions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The esophageal pressure and diaphragm thickening fraction were simultaneously recorded for five breaths at each respiratory condition. The relation between ∆P es and DTF was studied in a mixed model. We analyzed 407 breaths in 13 patients. Both DTF ( p = 0.03) and ∆Pes ( p = 0.002) could detect respiratory activity, and ∆P es and DTF were associated across respiratory conditions ( p < 0.001; R2 = 31%). With increasing inspiratory load, ∆P es increased significantly, while DTF did not ( p = 0.08). Additionally, DT ee did not differ significantly between 10, 5, and 0 cm H 2 O PEEP ( p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In spontaneously breathing sedated children and across different respiratory conditions, DTF could differentiate minimal or no inspiratory effort from substantial inspiratory effort and was associated with ∆P es . Increased efforts resulted in higher ∆P es but not larger DTF.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".