Dyssynchronous diaphragm contractions impair diaphragm function in mechanically ventilated patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical studies suggest that dyssynchronous diaphragm contractions during mechanical ventilation may cause acute diaphragm dysfunction. We aimed to describe the variability in diaphragm contractile loading conditions during mechanical ventilation and to establish whether dyssynchronous diaphragm contractions are associated with the development of impaired diaphragm dysfunction. METHODS: In patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for pneumonia, septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute brain injury, airway flow and pressure and diaphragm electrical activity (Edi) were recorded hourly around the clock for up to 7 days. Dyssynchronous post-inspiratory diaphragm loading was defined based on the duration of neural inspiration after expiratory cycling of the ventilator. Diaphragm function was assessed on a daily basis by neuromuscular coupling (NMC, the ratio of transdiaphragmatic pressure to diaphragm electrical activity). RESULTS: A total of 4508 hourly recordings were collected in 45 patients. Edi was low or absent (≤ 5 µV) in 51% of study hours (median 71 h per patient, interquartile range 39-101 h). Dyssynchronous post-inspiratory loading was present in 13% of study hours (median 7 h per patient, interquartile range 2-22 h). The probability of dyssynchronous post-inspiratory loading was increased with reverse triggering (odds ratio 15, 95% CI 8-35) and premature cycling (odds ratio 8, 95% CI 6-10). The duration and magnitude of dyssynchronous post-inspiratory loading were associated with a progressive decline in diaphragm NMC (p < 0.01 for interaction with time). CONCLUSIONS: Dyssynchronous diaphragm contractions may impair diaphragm function during mechanical ventilation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MYOTRAUMA, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03108118. Registered 04 April 2017 (retrospectively registered).
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".