MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract Sun105: Effects of a Flow Modulation Valve on Manual Ventilation Performance and Hemodynamics During Hemorrhagic Shock Resuscitation

2025· article· en· W4415793613 on OpenAlexaff
David D. Salcido, Jorge J. Gumucio, Rameen Forghani, Nina Lane, Arthur S. Slutsky, James J. Menegazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodynamicsResuscitationAirwayMean airway pressureVentilation (architecture)Blood pressureShock (circulatory)Peak inspiratory pressureBlood flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hemorrhagic shock, precipitated by rapid blood loss, is highly lethal. Successful treatment requires rapid stabilization to prevent mortality. Ventilatory support may be required when accompanied by respiratory failure, and in austere prehospital settings is most likely to occur via manual bagging, which carries risks of barotrauma and hemodynamic compromise. Airway flow limiting devices can facilitate correct manual ventilation, but their utility in the hemorrhagic shock resuscitation setting is not well established. Objective: Evaluate the use of an airway flow limiting device on manual ventilation performance and hemodynamics in a preclinical model of hemorrhagic shock resuscitation. Methods: We sedated, anesthetized and intubated 20 mixed-breed Yorkshire swine, mean(SD) weight 53.1(4) kg. Animals were mechanically ventilated at 8mL/kg while undergoing instrumentation (pressure transducer in descending aorta via femoral cutdown for assessing mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP)). Airway flow, pressure (P AW ) and tidal volume (V T ) were monitored continuously. We bled animals in 60cc draws until MAP <40mmHg, and then commenced manual bagging, with animals randomized to standard ventilation (“SHAM”) or flow modulated ventilation (“FM”; Sotair, SafeBVM, Inc). Respiratory rate was guided by a metronome, dynamically adjusted to maintain eucapnia. After 30 min, all withdrawn blood was returned and bagging continued for another 30 min. Performance and hemodynamic parameters were compared between groups and across shock&resuscitation phases (t-tests; ANOVA). a = 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance. Results: Fourteen pigs survived initial hemorrhage until randomization (1 animal arrested during resuscitation) and initiation of bagging (FM, n = 7; SHAM, n = 7). Airway performance parameters differed between FM and SHAM (p<0.001). MAP and SBP did not differ between FM and SHAM groups but differed between phases (p<0.001). Conclusions: Bagged ventilations with a flow modulation device resulted in more favorable ventilation performance, but no differences in hemodynamics during hemorrhagic shock/resuscitation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207