MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398217612 · doi:10.1186/s13613-024-01303-4

Reverse triggering ? a novel or previously missed phenomenon?

2024· article· en· W4398217612 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert L. Jackson, Audery Kim, Nikolay Moroz, L. Felipe Damiani, Domenico Luca Grieco, Thomas Piraino, Jan O. Friedrich, Alain Mercat, Irene Telías, Laurent Brochard

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcGill University Health CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reverse triggering (RT) was described in 2013 as a form of patient-ventilator asynchrony, where patient’s respiratory effort follows mechanical insufflation. Diagnosis requires esophageal pressure (Pes) or diaphragmatic electrical activity (EAdi), but RT can also be diagnosed using standard ventilator waveforms. We wondered (1) how frequently RT would be present but undetected in the figures from literature, especially before 2013; (2) whether it would be more prevalent in the era of small tidal volumes after 2000. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1950 to 2017, with key words related to asynchrony to identify papers with figures including ventilator waveforms expected to display RT if present. Experts labelled waveforms. ‘Definite’ RT was identified when Pes or EAdi were in the tracing, and ‘possible’ RT when only flow and pressure waveforms were present. Expert assessment was compared to the author’s descriptions of waveforms. We found 65 appropriate papers published from 1977 to now, containing 181 ventilator waveforms. 21 cases of ‘possible’ RT and 25 cases of ‘definite’ RT were identified by the experts. 18.8% of waveforms prior to 2013 had evidence of RT. Most cases were published after 2000 (1 before vs. 45 after, p = 0.03). 54% of RT cases were attributed to different phenomena. A few cases of identified RT were already described prior to 2013 using different terminology (earliest in 1997). While RT cases attributed to different phenomena decreased after 2013, 60% of ‘possible’ RT remained missed. RT has been present in the literature as early as 1997, but most cases were found after the introduction of low tidal volume ventilation in 2000. Following 2013, the number of undetected cases decreased, but RT are still commonly missed. Reverse Triggering, A Missed Phenomenon in the Literature. Critical Care Canada Forum 2019 Abstracts. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 67 (Suppl 1), 1–162 (2020). https://doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-019-01552-z .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Intensive CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207