MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411145426 · doi:10.1089/respcare.12987

Bench Evaluation of the Sedaconda Inhaled Sedation Device: Hygrometric Properties and Device Resistance

2025· article· en· W4411145426 on OpenAlexaff
François Lellouche, Laura-Ann Cyr, Pierre-Alexandre Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationAnesthesiaInhalationIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Sedaconda Anesthetic Conserving Device (ACD-S) is used for inhaled sedation in intubated patients and has passive humidification properties linked to the carbon material. However, limited evaluations of the hygrometric performance are available. The main aim of the study was to assess the humidification performance of this device with different ventilator settings and ambient temperatures. Methods: We assessed hygrometry of inspiratory gases and resistance of the Sedaconda ACD-S using a bench test. Hygrometric measurements were performed with 5 min ventilations from 4.8 to 18 L/min (at constant ambient temperature: 25 ± 1°C) and with 3 ambient temperatures, 22–24°C, 25 ± 1°C, and 28–30°C (at constant minute ventilation: 10 L/min). Simulation of physiologic expiratory gases with an absolute humidity of 35 mg H 2 O/L was used for main measurements. Some measurements were made with expiratory humidity of 27.5 mg H 2 O/L which corresponds to what is found in patients with moderate hypothermia. Three hygrometric measurements using the psychrometric method were performed for each tested condition. Device resistance was evaluated before utilization and after 96 h on the humidified bench and compared with a paper- and foam-based heat and moisture exchangers (HME) with similar dead spaces. Results: In tested conditions, mean humidity output was 29.8 ± 1.3 mg H 2 O/L. We found slightly lower humidity output at low versus high minute ventilation (respectively 28.0 ± 0.3 vs 30.6 ± 0.3, P < .001) and lowest versus highest ambient temperature (29.6 ± 0.3 vs 31.0 ± 0.2 mg H 2 O/L, P = .02). These differences are probably not clinically important. We found a linear relationship between expiratory and inspiratory humidity ( R 2 = 0.98, P < .001). Resistance of the tested device was higher, in comparison with paper- and foam-based HMEs, and increased slightly after 96 h of use on the bench. Conclusions: The Sedaconda ACD-S is a high-performance passive humidifier device, within all tested conditions of minute ventilation, tidal volume, and ambient temperature. Resistance was slightly higher compared with HMEs with similar dead space and different materials.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207