Swallowing during provision of helmet ventilation: Review and provisional multidisciplinary guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of noninvasive ventilation provided by a helmet increased globally during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This approach may reduce need for intubation and its associated clinical complications in critically ill patients. Use of helmet interface minimizes virus aerosolization while enabling verbal communication, oral feeding and coughing/expectoration of secretions during its administration. Although improved oral hydration is a recognized benefit of helmet NIV, relatively little is known about the safety and efficiency of swallowing during helmet NIV. Risk of aspiration is a key consideration given the fragile pulmonary status of critically ill patients requiring respiratory support, and therefore the decision to initiate oral intake is best made based on multidisciplinary input. We reviewed the current published evidence on NIV and its effects on upper airway physiology and swallowing function. We then presented a case example demonstrating preservation of swallowing performance with helmet NIV. Last, we offer provisional multidisciplinary guidance for clinical practice, and provide directions for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".