High‐flow nasal cannulae and nasal continuous positive airway pressure use in non‐tertiary special care nurseries in Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Non-tertiary centres (NTCs) in Australia and New Zealand are increasingly providing non-invasive respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP), to newborn infants. We aimed to determine the proportion of NTCs in these countries treating newborn infants with HFNC and nCPAP, and how these therapies are used. METHODS: We surveyed public and private NTCs in Australia and public NTCs in New Zealand. The survey, directed at senior medical and nursing staff, consisted of questions regarding unit demographics, HFNC and nCPAP use. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen responses were received regarding HFNC use, from 88% (80/91) of public hospitals and 64% (37/58) of private hospitals surveyed. Ten (8.5%) responders (nine public and one private) used HFNC; all used the Fisher & Paykel system. HFNC was used for respiratory distress syndrome from birth (9/10 units), as a weaning mode from nCPAP (5/10 units) and as treatment for apnoea (3/10 units). Flow rates used ranged from 1 to 8 L/min, with typical minimum flow of 1 L/min and maximum of 4-6 L/min. The main perceived advantage of HFNC was 'ease of use'. In the units treating newborn infants with nCPAP, it was used either in an ongoing fashion (43 units), short term or episodically (four units), or only for stabilisation prior to transfer (11 units). Excluding those units using nCPAP only for stabilisation and non-responders, 47/108 (44%) units were using nCPAP. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC is being used in NTCs in Australia and New Zealand, and the use of nCPAP has increased over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".