MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409033336 · doi:10.1080/17476348.2025.2487165

An overview of patient-ventilator asynchrony in children

2025· review· en· W4409033336 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Yoon, Robert G. T. Blokpoel, Chatila Ibn Hadj Hassine, Yukie Ito, Kévin Albert, Melissa Aczon, Martin C. J. Kneyber, Guillaume Émériaud, Robinder G. Khemani

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAsynchrony (computer programming)Intensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Mechanically ventilated children often have patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA). When a ventilated patient has spontaneous effort, the ventilator attempts to synchronize with the patient, but PVA represents a mismatch between patient respiratory effort and ventilator delivered breaths. AREAS COVERED: This review will focus on subtypes of patient ventilator asynchrony, methods to detect or measure PVA, risk factors for and characteristics of patients with PVA subtypes, potential clinical implications, treatment or prevention strategies, and future areas for research. Throughout this review, we will provide pediatric specific considerations. EXPERT OPINION: PVA in pediatric patients supported by mechanical ventilation occurs frequently and is understudied. Pediatric patients have unique physiologic and pathophysiologic characteristics which affect PVA. While recognition of PVA and its subtypes is important for bedside clinicians, the clinical implications and risks versus benefits of treatment targeted at reducing PVA remain unknown. Future research should focus on harmonizing PVA terminology, refinement of automated detection technologies, determining which forms of PVA are harmful, and development of PVA-specific ventilator interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207