MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Electrical impedance tomography monitoring in adult ICU patients: state-of-the-art, recommendations for standardized acquisition, processing, and clinical use, and future directions

2024· other· en· W6940216840 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyStandardizationClinical PracticeIntensive careVentilation (architecture)Continuous monitoringMechanical ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is an emerging technology for the non-invasive monitoring of regional distribution of ventilation and perfusion, offering real-time and continuous data that can greatly enhance our understanding and management of various respiratory conditions and lung perfusion. Its application may be especially beneficial for critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. Despite its potential, clear evidence of clinical benefits is still lacking, in part due to a lack of standardization and transparent reporting, which is essential for ensuring reproducible research and enhancing the use of EIT for personalized mechanical ventilation. This report is the result of a four-day expert meeting where we aimed to promote the consistent and reliable use of EIT, facilitating its integration into both clinical practice and research, focusing on the adult intensive care patient. We discuss the state-of-the-art regarding EIT acquisition and processing, applications during controlled ventilation and spontaneous breathing, ventilation-perfusion assessment, and novel future directions.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→