MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6920594397 · doi:10.60692/e2dw3-pmw59

Flow starvation during square-flow assisted ventilation detected by supervised deep learning techniques

2024· article· en· W6920594397 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirwayMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)Artificial neural networkPositive airway pressureDeep learningArtificial ventilationConvolutional neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Flow starvation is a type of patient-ventilator asynchrony that occurs when gas delivery does not fully meet the patients' ventilatory demand due to an insufficient airflow and/or a high inspiratory effort, and it is usually identified by visual inspection of airway pressure waveform. Clinical diagnosis is cumbersome and prone to underdiagnosis, being an opportunity for artificial intelligence. Our objective is to develop a supervised artificial intelligence algorithm for identifying airway pressure deformation during square-flow assisted ventilation and patient-triggered breaths. Methods Multicenter, observational study. Adult critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation > 24 h on square-flow assisted ventilation were included. As the reference, 5 intensive care experts classified airway pressure deformation severity. Convolutional neural network and recurrent neural network models were trained and evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall and F1 score. In a subgroup of patients with esophageal pressure measurement (Δ P es ), we analyzed the association between the intensity of the inspiratory effort and the airway pressure deformation. Results 6428 breaths from 28 patients were analyzed, 42% were classified as having normal-mild, 23% moderate, and 34% severe airway pressure deformation. The accuracy of recurrent neural network algorithm and convolutional neural network were 87.9% [87.6–88.3], and 86.8% [86.6–87.4], respectively. Double triggering appeared in 8.8% of breaths, always in the presence of severe airway pressure deformation. The subgroup analysis demonstrated that 74.4% of breaths classified as severe airway pressure deformation had a Δ P es > 10 cmH 2 O and 37.2% a Δ P es > 15 cmH 2 O. Conclusions Recurrent neural network model appears excellent to identify airway pressure deformation due to flow starvation. It could be used as a real-time, 24-h bedside monitoring tool to minimize unrecognized periods of inappropriate patient-ventilator interaction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207