MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400512853 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1399407

Body mass index is associated with pulmonary gas and blood distribution mismatch in COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. A physiological study

2024· article· en· W4400512853 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin Jona Bjarnadottir, Gaetano Perchiazzi, Caroline Lördal Sidenbladh, Aleksandra Larina, Ewa Wallin, Ing‐Marie Larsson, Stephanie Franzén, Anders Larsson, Mayson Laércio de Araújo Sousa, Monica Segelsjö, Tomas Hansen, Robert Frithiof, Michael Hultström, Miklós Lipcsey, Mariangela Pellegrini

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersScience for Life LaboratoryNjurfondenUppsala UniversitetVetenskapsrådetKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseSvenska LäkaresällskapetHjärt-LungfondenSvenska Sällskapet för Medicinsk Forskning
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Body mass indexMedicineRespiratory system2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Acute respiratory failureRespiratory failureInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineVirologyMechanical ventilationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The effects of obesity on pulmonary gas and blood distribution in patients with acute respiratory failure remain unknown. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is a X-ray-based method used to study regional distribution of gas and blood within the lung. We hypothesized that 1) regional gas/blood mismatch can be quantified by DECT; 2) obesity influences the global and regional distribution of pulmonary gas and blood; 3) regardless of ventilation modality (invasive vs. non-invasive ventilation), patients’ body mass index (BMI) has an impact on pulmonary gas/blood mismatch. Methods This single-centre prospective observational study enrolled 118 hypoxic COVID-19 patients (92 male) in need of respiratory support and intensive care who underwent DECT. The cohort was divided into three groups according to BMI: 1. BMI<25 kg/m2 (non-obese), 2. BMI = 25–40 kg/m2 (overweight to obese), and 3. BMI>40 kg/m2 (morbidly obese). Gravitational analysis of Hounsfield unit distribution of gas and blood was derived from DECT and used to calculate regional gas/blood mismatch. A sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the influence of the chosen ventilatory modality and BMI on gas/blood mismatch and adjust for other possible confounders (i.e., age and sex). Results 1) Regional pulmonary distribution of gas and blood and their mismatch were quantified using DECT imaging. 2) The BMI>40 kg/m2 group had less hyperinflation in the non-dependent regions and more lung collapse in the dependent regions compared to the other BMI groups. In morbidly obese patients, gas and blood were more evenly distributed; therefore, the mismatch was lower than in other patients (30% vs. 36%, p < 0.05). 3) An increase in BMI of 5 kg/m2 was associated with a decrease in mismatch of 3.3% (CI: 3.67% to −2.93%, p < 0.05). Neither the ventilatory modality nor age and sex affected the gas/blood mismatch (p > 0.05). Conclusion 1) In a hypoxic COVID-19 population needing intensive care, pulmonary gas/blood mismatch can be quantified at a global and regional level using DECT. 2) Obesity influences the global and regional distribution of gas and blood within the lung, and BMI>40 kg/m2 improves pulmonary gas/blood mismatch. 3) This is true regardless of the ventilatory mode and other possible confounders, i.e., age and sex. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov , identifier NCT04316884, NCT04474249.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207