First non-invasive magnetic phrenic nerve and diaphragm stimulation in anaesthetized patients: a proof-of-concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mechanical ventilation has side effects such as ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction, resulting in prolonged intensive care unit length of stays. Artificially evoked diaphragmatic muscle contraction may potentially maintain diaphragmatic muscle function and thereby ameliorate or counteract ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction. We hypothesized that bilateral non-invasive electromagnetic phrenic nerve stimulation (NEPNS) results in adequate diaphragm contractions and consecutively in effective tidal volumes. Results This single-centre proof-of-concept study was performed in five patients who were 30 [IQR 21–33] years old, 60% (n = 3) females and undergoing elective surgery with general anaesthesia. Following anaesthesia and reversal of muscle relaxation, patients received bilateral NEPNS with different magnetic field intensities (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%); the stimulation was performed bilaterally with dual coils (connected to one standard clinical magnetic stimulator), specifically designed for bilateral non-invasive electromagnetic nerve stimulation. The stimulator with a maximal output of 2400 Volt, 160 Joule, pulse length 160 µs at 100% intensity was limited to 50% intensity, i.e. each single coil had a maximal output of 0.55 Tesla and 1200 Volt. There was a linear relationship between dosage (magnetic field intensity) and effect (tidal volume, primary endpoint, p < 0.001). Mean tidal volume was 0.00, 1.81 ± 0.99, 4.55 ± 2.23 and 7.43 ± 3.06 ml/kg ideal body weight applying 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% stimulation intensity, respectively. Mean time to find an initial adequate stimulation point was 89 (range 15–441) seconds. Conclusions Bilateral non-invasive electromagnetic phrenic nerve stimulation generated a tidal volume of 3–6 ml/kg ideal body weight due to diaphragmatic contraction in lung-healthy anaesthetized patients. Further perspectives in critically ill patients should include assessment of clinical outcomes to confirm whether diaphragm contraction through non-invasive electromagnetic phrenic nerve stimulation potentially ameliorates or prevents diaphragm atrophy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".