Multi-center randomized superiority clinical trial in the early phase of mechanically ventilated patients to preserve diaphragm thickness using non-invasive magnetic phrenic nerve stimulation: STIMIT ACTIVATOR 1 pivotal trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction (VIDD) occurs in up to 60% of mechanically ventilated patients and prolongs ventilatory dependance. The consequences of VIDD are muscle atrophy, reduction of strength, and injury of muscle fibers. Atrophy and contractile activity of the diaphragm can be estimated by ultrasound muscle thickness and thickening fraction. Prior experience demonstrates invasive electrical stimulation of the diaphragm helps preserve muscle thickness. This is the first study on a non-invasive phrenic nerve stimulator that aims to assess its feasibility, safety, and usefulness in preserving diaphragm thickness. METHODS: A multi-center randomized clinical trial will be performed in four intensive care units (ICUs) in the United States of America and Canada. Inclusion criteria include patients older than 21 years, in the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation (MV) and predicted to remain on the ventilator for at least 48 h. Patients with contraindications for phrenic nerve stimulation, severe chronic pulmonary diseases, or impossibility to measure diaphragm thickness with ultrasound will be excluded. Patients enrolled will be randomized to standard care (control) or 30-min daily non-invasive phrenic nerve stimulation up to 10 days after enrollment (intervention). The primary effectiveness endpoint is the change in diaphragm thickness on day 10, extubation, or death whichever occurs first. Secondary endpoints include change in diaphragm thickness on day 4, maximal inspiratory pressure before extubation, and time-to rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) <105. Safety objectives include the proportion of device- or procedure-related adverse events (SAE). The estimated sample size will be 40 patients (20 per group). DISCUSSION: The STIMIT ACTIVATOR trial is a randomized multi-center study powered to elucidate whether non-invasive phrenic nerve stimulation is feasible, safe, and preserves diaphragm thickness. Meeting the primary endpoint will demonstrate its applicability in clinical practice to prevent diaphragmatic atrophy in ventilated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05883163, August 29, 2023.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".