How High-Flow Nasal Cannula Is Impacted by Nasogastric/Esophageal Tube: A Bench Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a common noninvasive respiratory therapy for respiratory failure, offering positive airway pressure and dead space clearance. In critically ill patients, additional nasal tubes for feeding or monitoring are often required, but their effect on HFNC performance is not well understood. This bench study evaluated the impact of nasal tube placement on dead space clearance, nasopharyngeal pressure, and airway resistance using standard and asymmetrical cannulas. Inserting a 5-Fr tube with a standard cannula had very little effect, whereas bigger sizes (12-Fr and 16-Fr) slightly increased airway pressure and reduce Co2 clearance. An asymmetrical cannula exhibited variable effects depending on the side of the tube placement. Higher pressure and better clearance were achieved with a tube placed in the smaller cannula side. However, if occlusion of the two nares becomes excessive with the tube in place, downsizing the cannula might be recommended.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".