Additional file 1 of Pendelluft in hypoxemic patients resuming spontaneous breathing: proportional modes versus pressure support ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Table S1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population. Table S2. Patients’ data at the study entry and the individualized levels of PEEP and comparable levels of assistance in NAVA, PAV + and PSV during the trial. Table S3. Comparison of tidal volume, esophageal swing and pressure–time product per minute at the titration period between NAVA, PAV + and PSV. Table S4. Individual differences of the respiratory variables during crossover trial, using PS.as reference value. Table S5. Comparison of tidal volume and dorsal fraction of ventilation between cycles with high and between cycles with low magnitude of pendelluft during NAVA, PAV + and PSV. Figure S1. Assistance titration in NAVA, PAV + and PSV. Figure S2. Quasi-static driving airway pressure for respiratory system and lung in PAV + during the trial. Figure S3. Additional indices of respiratory drive (dPdi/dt and dPes/dt) in NAVA, PAV + and PSV. Figure S4. Dorsal fraction of ventilation in cycles with high compared with low magnitude of pendelluft in NAVA, PAV + and PSV at similar tidal volume. Figure S5. Dorsal fraction of ventilation in cycles with high compared with low magnitude of pendelluft in NAVA, PAV + and PSV at similar tidal volume. Methods S1. Ethics approval. Methods S2. Transition from controlled ventilation to partial ventilatory support. Methods S3. Study protocol. Methods S4. Quasi-static driving airway pressure for respiratory system and lung in PAV+ during the trial. Methods S5. Additional indices of respiratory drive (dPdi/dt and dPes/dt). Methods S6. Dorsal fraction of ventilation in ventilatory cycles with low and high magnitude of pendelluft
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 | 0.002 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.824 | 0.072 |
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".