Flow starvation during square-flow assisted ventilation detected by supervised deep learning techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Flow starvation is a type of patient-ventilator asynchrony that occurs when gas delivery does not fully meet the patients’ ventilatory demand due to an insufficient airflow and/or a high inspiratory effort, and it is usually identified by visual inspection of airway pressure waveform. Clinical diagnosis is cumbersome and prone to underdiagnosis, being an opportunity for artificial intelligence. Our objective is to develop a supervised artificial intelligence algorithm for identifying airway pressure deformation during square-flow assisted ventilation and patient-triggered breaths. Methods Multicenter, observational study. Adult critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation > 24 h on square-flow assisted ventilation were included. As the reference, 5 intensive care experts classified airway pressure deformation severity. Convolutional neural network and recurrent neural network models were trained and evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall and F1 score. In a subgroup of patients with esophageal pressure measurement (Δ P es ), we analyzed the association between the intensity of the inspiratory effort and the airway pressure deformation. Results 6428 breaths from 28 patients were analyzed, 42% were classified as having normal-mild, 23% moderate, and 34% severe airway pressure deformation. The accuracy of recurrent neural network algorithm and convolutional neural network were 87.9% [87.6–88.3], and 86.8% [86.6–87.4], respectively. Double triggering appeared in 8.8% of breaths, always in the presence of severe airway pressure deformation. The subgroup analysis demonstrated that 74.4% of breaths classified as severe airway pressure deformation had a Δ P es > 10 cmH 2 O and 37.2% a Δ P es > 15 cmH 2 O. Conclusions Recurrent neural network model appears excellent to identify airway pressure deformation due to flow starvation. It could be used as a real-time, 24-h bedside monitoring tool to minimize unrecognized periods of inappropriate patient-ventilator interaction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".