The oesophageal balloon for respiratory monitoring in ventilated patients: updated clinical review and practical aspects
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
There is a well-recognised importance for personalising mechanical ventilation settings to protect the lungs and the diaphragm for each individual patient. Measurement of oesophageal pressure ( P oes ) as an estimate of pleural pressure allows assessment of partitioned respiratory mechanics and quantification of lung stress, which helps our understanding of the patient's respiratory physiology and could guide individualisation of ventilator settings. Oesophageal manometry also allows breathing effort quantification, which could contribute to improving settings during assisted ventilation and mechanical ventilation weaning. In parallel with technological improvements, P oes monitoring is now available for daily clinical practice. This review provides a fundamental understanding of the relevant physiological concepts that can be assessed using P oes measurements, both during spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation. We also present a practical approach for implementing oesophageal manometry at the bedside. While more clinical data are awaited to confirm the benefits of P oes -guided mechanical ventilation and to determine optimal targets under different conditions, we discuss potential practical approaches, including positive end-expiratory pressure setting in controlled ventilation and assessment of inspiratory effort during assisted modes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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