Feasibility and Practical Considerations for Heating and Humidifying Gases during Newborn Stabilisation: An in vitro Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gases for respiratory support at birth are typically 'cold and dry', which may increase the risk of hypothermia and lung injury. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of using heated humidification from birth. METHOD: A humidifier targeting 37°C, a manual-fill chamber and a Neopuff Infant T-piece resuscitator and circuit were attached to a face mask and a manikin. Recordings using 20 ml H2O for humidification and a flow of 10 l/min were undertaken. Temperature and relative humidity (RH) were recorded. Additional recordings were made, each with one alteration to baseline (50 ml H2O for humidification, auto-fill chamber, a flow of 8 l/min, addition of circuit extension piece, warmed humidification H2O, increased ambient temperature and targeting 31°C). The duration of heated humidification and the response to disconnecting the power were investigated. RESULTS: The baseline circuit achieved 95% RH and 31°C in 3 min, >99% RH in 7 min and ≥35°C in 9 min. No circuit alterations resulted in faster gas conditioning. The extended length circuit and targeting 31°C reduced the maximum temperature achieved. A flow of 8 l/min resulted in slower heating and humidification. The baseline circuit delivered heated humidification for 39 min. Without power, the temperature and humidity fell below international standards in 3 min. CONCLUSION: Rapid gas conditioning for newborn stabilisation is feasible using the experimental set-up, ≥20 ml H2O and a flow of 10 l/min. The circuit could be used immediately once switched on. Without power, conditioning is quickly lost. Investigation of the clinical effects of gas conditioning is warranted.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".