Feasibility of Setting the Tidal Volume Based on End-Expiratory Lung Volume: A Pilot Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of setting the tidal volume (TV) as 25% of the actual aerated lung volume (rather than on ideal body weight) in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Physiologic prospective single-center pilot study. SETTING: Medical ICU specialized in the care of patients with ARDS. PATIENTS: Patients with moderate-severe ARDS deeply sedated or paralyzed, undergoing controlled mechanical ventilation with a ventilator able to measure the end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) with a washin, washout technique. INTERVENTIONS: Three-phase study (baseline, strain-selected TV setting, ventilation with strain-selected TV for 24 hr). The TV was calculated as 25% of the measured EELV minus the static strain due to the applied positive end-expiratory pressure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Gas exchanges and respiratory mechanics were measured and compared in each phase. In addition, during the TV setting phase, driving pressure (DP) and lung strain (TV/EELV) were measured at different TVs to assess the correlation between the two measurements. The maintenance of the set strain-selected TV for 24 hours was safe and feasible in 76% of the patients enrolled. Three patients dropped out from the study because of the need to set a respiratory rate higher than 35 breaths per minute to avoid respiratory acidosis. The DP of the respiratory system was a satisfactory surrogate for strain in this population. CONCLUSIONS: O corresponded to a strain less than 0.25.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".