Clinical and Physiological Responses to Prolonged Nasogastric Administration of Doxapram for Apnea of Prematurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that enteral doxapram would effectively treat apnea of prematurity without the appearance of major side effects. Of 16 infants, 10 (BW 1,520 +/- 102 g) received doxapram alone and 6 (BW 1,020 +/- 35 g) received doxapram plus theophylline. Apneas decreased from 16.7 +/- 1.9 to 2.1 +/- 0.6 in infants receiving doxapram alone, and from 38.2 +/- 4.4 to 7.9 +/- 2.2 apneas/24 h in those receiving doxapram plus theophylline. This was associated with an increase in alveolar ventilation, a shift of the ventilatory response to CO2 to the left, and no change in the immediate ventilatory response to 100% oxygen. Side effects included premature teeth buds corresponding to the lower central incisors, prevalence of occult blood in stool and necrotizing enterocolitis. The findings suggest that doxapram effectively controls apnea when given enterally, but should be used cautiously because of potentially harmful side effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".