ArticleRespiratory research2026
Human ex-vivo lung mechanics differ under positive- and negative-pressure ventilation.
Article in Respiratory research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human airway material characterization via inverse finite element analysis and neural network surrogate.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- Injury Mechanics in Surfactant-Depleted and Healthy Rat Lungs: A Multi-scale Consideration of Artificial and Physiological Ventilation.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical and mechanical studies reveal key differences between positive- and negative-pressure ventilation, yet their equivalencyPlease check if the authors and their affiliation are presented and indicated correctly. remains a topic of debate. This debate is perpetuated by contradictory reports from a variety of small- and large-scale animal models. While the usage of animal models has been transformative with incomparable advantages for advancing research efforts, they partially limit the translatability of findings to clinical settings and the accurate assessment of ventilation mode dependencies. For the first time, we inflate ten ex-vivo donated cadaveric human lungs with both positive- and negative-pressure to evaluate mechanistic differences between these ventilation modes and subsequently analyzed the obtained pressure-volume curves using our custom electromechanical ventilator. We report end-inspiratory metrics with disparate end-expiratory and plateau pressures, dynamic compliances, resistance, and viscoelastic metrics between ventilation modes. These rare human lung findings are partly consistent with past animal studies, which reported matched peak pressure-volume behaviors with differing inflation compliances between positive- and negative-pressure ventilation. Differing deflation compliance and end-expiration pressures have not been demonstrated under animal models, highlighting the need for human organ testing. Results suggest distinct recruitment patterns between ventilation modes, providing mechanical insights linked to reports of better oxygenation in negative-pressure ventilation and potential contributors to ventilator-induced lung injury in positive-pressure ventilation.
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.