Similar Weaning Success Rate with High-Intensity and Sham Inspiratory Muscle Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial (IMweanT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) improves respiratory muscle function in patients with weaning difficulties. IMT protocols involve performing daily sets of breaths against external loads. However, the impact of IMT on weaning outcomes while incorporating sham control interventions remains unclear. Objectives To compare the effects of a high-intensity IMT (Hi-IMT) intervention with a sham low-intensity (Lo-IMT) control group on weaning outcomes and respiratory muscle and pulmonary function 28 days after inclusion in patients with weaning difficulties. Methods Both groups underwent daily IMT sessions until successful weaning or a maximum of 28 days. The Hi-IMT group (n = 44; 61% male; aged 57 ± 15 yr) performed maximal inspirations initiated from residual volume against an external load representing 30–50% of maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax), and the control group (n = 46; 52% male; aged 60 ± 12 yr) performed maximal inspirations against a load ⩽10% PImax. Measurements and Main Results Training adherence (completed/planned sessions) was comparable between the groups (Hi-IMT, 77 ± 20%; Lo-IMT, 72 ± 17%; P = 0.25). Weaning success (64% Hi-IMT and 76% Lo-IMT; P = 0.43) and weaning duration (Hi-IMT, 45 ± 48 d; Lo-IMT, 37 ± 26 d; P = 0.33) were similar between groups. Both groups similarly improved PImax (Hi-IMT, +15 cm H2O [95% confidence interval (CI), 9, 20]; Lo-IMT, +14 cm H2O [95% CI, 9, 19]; P = 0.72). FVC improved more in the Hi-IMT group than in the Lo-IMT group (Hi-IMT, +0.33 L [95% CI, 0.22, 0.43]; Lo-IMT, +0.16 L [95% CI, 0.07, 0.25]; P = 0.04). Conclusions Both high-intensity IMT and sham low-intensity IMT, with high adherence to the protocol, resulted in similar weaning success rates and pronounced improvements in maximal inspiratory muscle strength. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03240263).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".