Observational studyPediatric research2024
Detection and quantitative analysis of patient-ventilator interactions in ventilated infants by deep learning networks.
Observational study in Pediatric research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence and digital technologies transforming neonatal respiratory assessment: a scoping review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in mechanical ventilation: a narrative review of clinical applications and research gaps.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Safely developing respiratory care during emergency neonatal transport through systematic collection and analysis of detailed ventilator data.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe study of patient-ventilator interactions (PVI) in mechanically ventilated neonates is limited by the lack of unified PVI definitions and tools to perform large scale analyses.
methodsAn observational study was conducted in 23 babies randomly selected from 170 neonates who were ventilated with SIPPV-VG, SIMV-VG or PSV-VG mode for at least 12 h. 500 breaths were randomly selected and manually annotated from each recording to train convolutional neural network (CNN) models for PVI classification.
resultsThe average asynchrony index (AI) over all recordings was 52.5%. The most frequently occurring PVIs included expiratory work (median: 28.4%, interquartile range: 23.2-40.2%), late cycling (7.6%, 2.8-10.2%), failed triggering (4.6%, 1.2-6.2%) and late triggering (4.4%, 2.8-7.4%). Approximately 25% of breaths with a PVI had two or more PVIs occurring simultaneously. Binary CNN classifiers were developed for PVIs affecting ≥1% of all breaths (n = 7) and they achieved F1 scores of >0.9 on the test set except for early triggering where it was 0.809.
conclusionsPVIs occur frequently in neonates undergoing conventional mechanical ventilation with a significant proportion of breaths containing multiple PVIs. We have developed computational models for seven different PVIs to facilitate automated detection and further evaluation of their clinical significance in neonates. IMPACT: The study of patient-ventilator interactions (PVI) in mechanically ventilated neonates is limited by the lack of unified PVI definitions and tools to perform large scale analyses. By adapting a recent taxonomy of PVI definitions in adults, we have manually annotated neonatal ventilator waveforms to determine prevalence and co-occurrence of neonatal PVIs. We have also developed binary deep learning classifiers for common PVIs to facilitate their automatic detection and quantification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.