MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PS-278 Automated Versus Manual Fio2 Control At Different Saturation Targets In Preterm Infants: Abstract PS-278 Table 1

2014· article· en· W1973990631 on OpenAlexaff
Anton van Kaam, Helmut Hummler, Maria Wilińska, Janusz Świetliński, Mithilesh Lal, Arjan B. te Pas, Gianluca Lista, Samir Gupta, Carlos Fajardo, Wes Onland, Markus Waitz, Małgorzata Warakomska, Francesco Cavigioli, Eduardo Bancalari, Nelson Claure, Thomas E. Bachman

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoxemiaAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Preterm infants spend only 50% of time within the target oxygen saturation (SpO2) during manual FiO2 control (M-FiO2). Automated FiO2 control (A-FiO2) improves SpO2 targeting but it is uncertain if this applies to different SpO2 target ranges and during non-invasive support (NIVS) and mechanical ventilation (MV). Objective To compare the efficacy of A-FiO2 vs M-FiO2 in keeping two different SpO2 targets during NIVS or MV. Design/methods Preterm infants on FiO2 >0.21 receiving NIVS or MV were randomised to SpO2 targets 89–93% or 91–95% and underwent M-FiO2 and A-FiO2 for 24 h each, in random sequence. Results 80 infants (GA:26 w, age:18 d) were included (NIVS = 48, MV = 32). Time within target increased and below target decreased during A-FiO2 compared with M-FiO2, especially in the lower target range. There was a reduction in time and hypoxemia episodes with SpO2 < 80% during A-FiO2. Outcomes did not differ between NIVS or MV. Conclusions Automated FiO2 control improved SpO2 targeting across different SpO2 ranges and reduced hypoxemia with less workload during both NIVS and MV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207