MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PP165 Topic: AS15–Lung: Respiratory Support/Acute Respiratory Failure/Other: A PHYSIOLOGIC COMPARISON OF CONTINUOUS NEURALLY ADJUSTED VENTILATION (NEUROPAP) VS NEURALLY-ADJUSTED VENTILATORY ASSIST (NAVA) IN INFANTS WITH RESPIRATORY FAILURE

2024· article· en· W4404040958 on OpenAlexaff
Virginie Plante, Laurence Tabone, M. Sauthier, Gregory A. Lodygensky, Jennifer Beck, Christer A. Sinderby, Guillaume Émériaud

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory failureRespiratory systemVentilation (architecture)Acute respiratory failureMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims & Objectives: Tonic diaphragmatic activity is frequent during pediatric non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and suggests efforts to defend end-expiratory lung volumes. We assessed the impact of NeuroPAP, a new mode with continuous adjustment of pressure support proportionally to diaphragm electric activity (Edi) during both inspiration and expiration, in infants with respiratory failure Methods: This prospective non-randomized crossover study enrolled premature neonates (25-34 weeks) and infants with bronchiolitis supported by NIV-NAVA. Subjects were successively ventilated in NIV-NAVA (pre-study settings), in NeuroPAP, and again in NIV-NAVA. Delivered ventilatory pressures, Edi, cardio-respiratory events, neural breathing patterns, and systemic (estimated PF ratio–ePF) and cerebral (cNIRS) oxygenation were assessed. Results: Fifteen infants with bronchiolitis and 8 premature neonates were included. The group median PEEP was unchanged between modes, but breath-to-breath variability was significantly higher in NeuroPAP (p<0.001). In NeuroPAP, the individual median PEEP increased compared to pre-study settings in 7, decreased in 9, and was unchanged in 7 patients. The breathing pattern was phasic 74% and tonic 16% of time, compared to 61% (p=0.31) and 23% (p=0.36) in NAVA. The respiratory rate was lower in NeuroPAP; this was significant for the preterm group (p=0.006). The ePF ratio was higher in the second NIV-NAVA period after NeuroPAP phase; this was significant for the bronchiolitis group (p=0.006). There was no difference in Edi, heart rate, cNIRS, or in cardio-respiratory events. Conclusions: In infants with respiratory failure, NeuroPAP allowed dynamic control and personalization of end-expiratory pressures compared to NAVA and was well tolerated. Its impact on clinical outcomes warrants further evaluation. Keywords: PEEP, Infant, noninvasive ventilation

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207