Impact of Supine Versus Semirecumbent Body Posture on the Distribution of Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
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
In some patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a paradoxical improvement in respiratory system compliance (C RS ) has been observed when assuming a supine (head of bed [HOB] 0°) compared with semirecumbent (HOB 35–40°) posture. We sought to test the hypothesis that mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS would have improved C RS , due to changes in ventilation distribution, when moving from the semirecumbent to supine position. We conducted a prospective, observational ICU study including 14 mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS. For each patient, ventilation distribution (assessed by electrical impedance tomography) and pulmonary mechanics were compared in supine versus semirecumbent postures. Compared with semirecumbent, in the supine posture C RS increased (33 ± 21 vs. 26 ± 14 mL/cm H 2 O, p = 0.005), driving pressure was reduced (14 ± 6 vs. 17 ± 7 cm H 2 O, p < 0.001), and dorsal fraction of ventilation was decreased (48.5 ± 14.1% vs. 54.5 ± 12.0%, p = 0.003). Posture change from semirecumbent to supine resulted in a favorable physiologic response in terms of improved C RS and reduced driving pressure—with a corresponding increase in ventral ventilation, possibly related to reduced ventral overdistension.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it