Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Acute Brain Injuries: A Pathophysiology-based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applying mechanical ventilation and selecting ventilatory strategies in patients with acute brain injuries, especially those with lung damage, is challenging. Static (positive end-expiratory pressure) and dynamic (intratidal) changes in ventilator pressure, via complex pathways, influence cerebral arterial inflow and cerebral venous pressure and thus cerebral blood volume and intracranial pressure. In this process, the relationship between airway pressure and pleural and transalveolar pressures, heavily affected by elastance of the chest wall and lung, respectively, plays a central role. This relationship determines the extent to which a static and dynamic increase in airway pressure affects the cardiac function and venous return curves, which govern the static and dynamic arterial and central venous pressures. The integrity of cerebral autoregulation determines whether static changes in arterial pressure alter cerebral arterial inflow. Conversely, dynamic changes in arterial pressure during the breath are followed by corresponding changes in cerebral arterial inflow because of the inability of autoregulation to control rapid arterial pressure fluctuations. The flow dynamics in the jugular veins and the relationship between intracranial and sagittal sinus pressures determine whether static and dynamic changes in central venous pressure alter cerebral venous pressure. Setting the ventilator and planning strategies should be individualized and guided by the complex, interactive effects among central nervous, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems on cerebral blood volume and cerebral perfusion and intracranial pressures. Following a logical framework, clinicians may anticipate the likely effects of ventilator settings and strategies on cerebral hemodynamics, enabling a more individualized approach in setting the ventilator and planning ventilatory strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".