MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405941478 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100860

Respiratory metrics of neonatal positive pressure ventilation on different ventilatory rates: A simulation study

2024· article· en· W4405941478 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Zhou, Xiaohong Xi, Pu Zhao, Silu Wang, Fangfang Tao, Xiaoying Gu, Po‐Yin Cheung, Jiang-Qin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentilation (architecture)Positive pressure ventilationRespiratory systemMedicineAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Effective ventilation is the core of neonatal resuscitation (NR). T-piece resuscitators (TPR) and self-inflating bags (SIB) are the two most widely utilized resuscitation devices. Nevertheless, limited information is available regarding the respiratory metrics during NR with these devices. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the respiratory metrics at different ventilatory rates (VR) using a TPR or SIB during NR training. Methods: An observational, simulation study was conducted during a NR training course. The participants were instructed to perform positive pressure ventilation at predetermined pressures and varying rates using TPR and SIB. They were subsequently grouped into three categories based on their actual VR: 20-40 breaths per minute (bpm) (SlowVR), 40-60 bpm (StdVR), and 60-80 bpm (FastVR). Respiratory metrics were recorded and analyzed using a neonatal active lung model (NALM). Results: Of the 71 participants in the training course, data from 66 were validated by analyzing 198 ventilations. In general, the participants manipulated the TPR slightly slower than the SIB. Notably, the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) detected via TPR in the NALM was substantially higher, whereas the tidal volume (Tv) and minute volume (MV) with TPR were significantly smaller than those with SIB (p < 0.05). A significant decrease in the peak alveolar pressure (palva) was observed with faster TPR ventilation (p < 0.001), whereas no such reduction was observed with SIB (p = 0.103). Additionally, faster VR correlated positively with higher PEEP levels for both TPR (F = 7.543, p = 0.002) and SIB (F = 7.720, p = 0.002) and inversely with smaller Tv for both TPR (F = 19.239, p < 0.001) and SIB (F = 14.937, p < 0.001). However, no significant differences in MV were observed across the different VR for either TPR or SIB (both p > 0.05). Conclusions: Faster VR were inversely associated with smaller Tv but increased PEEP in both devices. Despite the guidelines of NR, VR exceeding 60 bpm with TPR might sometimes be used, was associated with excessive PEEP in TPR, which may not be a safe in clinical practice. The effect of varying VR on MV was relatively minor for both TPR and SIB.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 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 venueResuscitation PlusSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207