MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404484253 · doi:10.1038/s43856-024-00662-0

Restoring brain connectivity by phrenic nerve stimulation in sedated and mechanically ventilated patients

2024· article· en· W4404484253 on OpenAlexaff
Thiago Bassi, Elizabeth Rohrs E, Mélodie Parfait, Brett C. Hannigan, Steven Reynolds, Julien Mayaux, Maxens Decavèle, Jose L. Herrero, Alexandre Demoule, Thomas Similowski, Martin Dres

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLungpacer Medical (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanical ventilationMedicineAnesthesiaPhrenic nerveVentilation (architecture)ARDSSedationDiaphragmatic breathingStimulationDiaphragm (acoustics)Respiratory systemLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients, deep sedation and mechanical ventilation suppress the brain-diaphragm-lung axis and are associated with cognitive issues in survivors. METHODS: This exploratory crossover design study investigates whether phrenic nerve stimulation can enhance brain activity and connectivity in six deeply sedated, mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that adding phrenic stimulation on top of invasive mechanical ventilation in deeply sedated, critically ill, moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome patients increases cortical activity, connectivity, and synchronization in the frontal-temporal-parietal cortices. CONCLUSIONS: Adding phrenic stimulation on top of invasive mechanical ventilation in deeply sedated, critically ill, moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome patients increases cortical activity, connectivity, and synchronization. The observed changes resemble those during diaphragmatic breathing in awake humans. These results suggest that phrenic nerve stimulation has the potential to restore the brain-diaphragm-lung crosstalk when it has been shut down or impaired by mechanical ventilation and sedation. Further research should evaluate the clinical significance of these results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207