MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979916642 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0b013e31824ea2b7

Neonatal incubators

2012· article· en· W1979916642 on OpenAlexaff
Paul E. Marik, Christopher K. Fuller, Alexander Levitov, Elizabeth Moll

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsL'Alliance Boviteq
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncubatorSound pressureSound (geography)AcousticsMedicineNoise (video)Sound level meterNoise levelComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High sound pressure levels may be harmful to the maturing newborn. Current guidelines suggest that the sound pressure levels within a neonatal intensive care unit should not exceed 45 dB(A). It is likely that environmental noise as well as the noise generated by the incubator fan and respiratory equipment may contribute to the total sound pressure levels. Knowledge of the contribution of each component and source is important to develop effective strategies to reduce noise within the incubator. AIMS: The objectives of this study were to determine the sound levels, sound spectra, and major sources of sound within a modern neonatal incubator (Giraffe Omnibed; GE Healthcare, Helsinki, Finland) using a sound simulation study to replicate the conditions of a preterm infant undergoing high-frequency jet ventilation (Life Pulse, Bunnell, UT). METHODS: Using advanced sound data acquisition and signal processing equipment, we measured and analyzed the sound level at a dummy infant's ear and at the head level outside the enclosure. The sound data time histories were digitally acquired and processed using a digital Fast Fourier Transform algorithm to provide spectra of the sound and cumulative sound pressure levels (dBA). The simulation was done with the incubator cooling fan and ventilator switched on or off. In addition, tests were carried out with the enclosure sides closed and hood down and then with the enclosure sides open and the hood up to determine the importance of interior incubator reverberance on the interior sound levels RESULTS: With all the equipment off and the hood down, the sound pressure levels were 53 dB(A) inside the incubator. The sound pressure levels increased to 68 dB(A) with all equipment switched on (approximately 10 times louder than recommended). The sound intensity was 6.0 × 10(-8) watts/m(2); this sound level is roughly comparable with that generated by a kitchen exhaust fan on high. Turning the ventilator off reduced the overall sound pressure levels to 64 dB(A) and the sound pressure levels in the low-frequency band of 0 to 100 Hz were reduced by 10 dB(A). The incubator fan generated tones at 200, 400, and 600 Hz that raised the sound level by approximately 2 dB(A)-3 dB(A). Opening the enclosure (with all equipment turned on) reduced the sound levels above 50 Hz by reducing the revereberance within the enclosure. CONCLUSION: The sound levels, especially at low frequencies, within a modern incubator may reach levels that are likely to be harmful to the developing newborn. Much of the noise is at low frequencies and thus difficult to reduce by conventional means. Therefore, advanced forms of noise control are needed to address this issue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207