Does the use of primary continuous positive airway pressure reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in infants ≤32 weeks' gestation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventilator-induced lung injury is a recognized risk factor for bronchopulmonary dysplasia. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), defined as CPAP without previous endotracheal intubation for any indication, can reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in infants born at ≤32 weeks' gestational age. METHODS: The literature was reviewed using the methodology for systematic reviews for the Consensus on Resuscitation Science adapted from the American Heart Association's International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were reviewed. Eleven studies provided varying degrees of supportive evidence (level of evidence 3 to 4) that the use of primary CPAP can reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION: The use of CPAP as a primary intervention and mode of respiratory support is an option for infants ≤32 weeks' gestation, but avoidance of intubation and mechanical ventilation is more likely in mature infants >27 weeks' gestation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".