Double cycling with breath-stacking during partial support ventilation in ARDS: Just a feature of natural variability?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Double cycling with breath-stacking (DC/BS) during controlled mechanical ventilation is considered potentially injurious, reflecting a high respiratory drive. During partial ventilatory support, its occurrence might be attributable to physiological variability of breathing patterns, reflecting the response of the mode without carrying specific risks. This secondary analysis of a crossover study evaluated DC/BS events in hypoxemic patients resuming spontaneous breathing in cross-over under neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), proportional assist ventilation (PAV +), and pressure support ventilation (PSV). DC/BS was defined as two inspiratory cycles with incomplete exhalation. Measurements included electrical impedance signal, airway pressure, esophageal and gastric pressures, and flow. Breathing variability, dynamic compliance (C L dyn), and end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) were analyzed. Twenty patients under assisted breathing, with a median of 9 [5–14] days on mechanical ventilation, were included. DC/BS was attributed to either a single (42%) or two apparent consecutive inspiratory efforts (58%). The median [IQR] incidence of DC/BS was low: 0.6 [0.1–2.6] % in NAVA, 0.0 [0.0–0.4] % in PAV + , and 0.1 [0.0–0.4] % in PSV ( p = 0.06). DC/BS events were associated with patient’s coefficient of variability for tidal volume ( p = 0.014) and respiratory rate ( p = 0.011). DC/BS breaths exhibited higher tidal volume, muscular pressure and regional stretch compared to regular breaths. Post-DC/BS cycles frequently exhibited improved EELI and C L dyn, with no evidence of expiratory muscle activation in 63% of cases. DC/BS events during partial ventilatory support were infrequent and linked to breathing variability. Their frequency and physiological effects on lung compliance and EELI resemble spontaneous sighs and may not be considered a priori as harmful.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".