Accuracy of the Set Tidal Volume During Intraoperative Administration of Aerosols Into the Anesthetic Circuit: An <i>In Vitro</i> Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Precise control of minute ventilation is essential during the intraoperative anesthetic care of infants and children, as increased tidal volume (Vt) and consequently increased peak inflating pressure (PIP), may lead to volutrauma or barotrauma. During the intraoperative delivery of aerosolized medications such as albuterol, the additional flow required for delivery through nebulizers may alter Vt and secondarily PIP. The current study explores Vt changes during the use of a novel nebulizing device (Aerogen vibrating mesh) for the delivery of an aerosolized medication during mechanical ventilation. Methods: Using a lung analogue model, this in vitro study compared the set Vt on the anesthesia ventilator to the internally measured inspiratory and expiratory Vt on the Avance CS2 anesthesia machine during both pressure-controlled (PC) and volume-controlled (VC) modes while administering aerosols using the Aerogen device. Results: A total of 250 simulated breaths were delivered using the two modes of PC ventilation (PIP 15 and 20 cm H2O) and VC ventilation (Vt of 150 and 300 mL). In both PC and VC modes, there were no clinically significant differences between the set and the inspiratory or expiratory Vt or PIP at baseline when compared to those achieved following the addition of a continuous aerosol using the Aerogen device. Conclusions: The novel technology of the Aerogen vibrating mesh device allows the delivery of continuous aerosolized medications during intraoperative mechanical ventilation using a standard anesthesia circle system. The Aerogen device can be inserted between the Y-piece of the anesthesia circuit and the 15-mm adaptor of the endotracheal to easily allow the delivery of aerosolized medications without changes in mechanical ventilation parameters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".