MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040527985 · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-3456

Time for Pressure Tactics

2007· letter· en· W2040527985 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keith J. Barrington

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Therapies for hypotension in very preterm infants are among the most common interventions given to these fragile patients. The proportion of very low birth weight infants who receive potent and potentially toxic interventions varies dramatically from one NICU to another.1A prospective cohort study of extremely low gestational age newborns (the ELGAN study), results of which are published in this issue of Pediatrics,2 shows even greater variation in interventions for hypotension than previously reported. The proportion of infants under 28 weeks' gestation who were treated ranged from 32% to 98%, and the proportion that received either hydrocortisone or vasopressor agents ranged from 8% to 86%. The investigators examined the reasons for these variations and were unable to show that hypotension was more frequent or severe in the high-intervention centers. Indeed, the only consistent factor associated with intervention was the NICU in which the infant was. It is remarkable that in 7 of the participating NICUs, <10% of the infants under 28 weeks' gestation were considered to have a good enough cardiovascular status to avoid treatment.These enormous variations in practice reflect the differences between the criteria for treatment and the favorite interventions reported in a survey of neonatologists.3 The most common criterion was a mean arterial pressure in mmHg less than the gestational age in weeks (either with or without clinical signs), which is a simplistic threshold that ignores the well-described spontaneous increase in normal blood pressure that occurs in the first few days of life and has no empirical support in the literature. More than 50% of very immature infants will have a blood pressure below this threshold on the first day of life.4 Using such a criterion is also inconsistent with the well-described lack of association of blood pressure with systemic blood flow.5 Therefore, it is very evident, unfortunately, that we truly have no idea which preterm newborns might benefit from cardiovascular support6 or what interventions are effective in improving clinical outcomes.Most neonatologists start treatment for hypotension with at least 1 fluid bolus and then commence dopamine.3 Additional evidence of the uncertainty surrounding hypotension treatment is shown by the fact that the starting dose of dopamine given by some individuals is the same as the maximum dose used by others; the same pattern is seen for dobutamine, epinephrine, volume of saline given as a fluid bolus, and (dramatically so) steroids (hydrocortisone starting dose: 0.1–5 mg/kg; maximum: 0.5–15 mg/kg).Unfortunately, the authors of this study have not provided data to indicate if the described variations in practice are associated with variations in clinically important outcomes, but other data suggest that such associations do exist. The Canadian neonatal network, for example, has shown an odds of developing severe intraventricular hemorrhage that varied >10-fold between units even after adjusting for severity of illness and demographic factors known to affect risk.7 That study suggested that pressor treatment of hypotension was associated with a worse outcome in preterm infants; this remains true even when the severity of hypotension is accounted for.4 Previous observational data have also shown an increase in intraventricular hemorrhage8 and mortality9 in preterm infants that is associated with fluid-bolus administration.Eighty-two percent of the infants in the ELGAN study received treatment for hypotension; if this is generally true in the United States (where ∼0.4% of the 4.1 million births [ie, ∼16000 infants] are born at extremely low gestational age annually), then >13000 very high-risk infants are receiving treatment of unknown efficacy and toxicity for uncertain indications each year. Similar dramatic figures could be calculated for other countries.A critical review of the literature reveals that there have never been randomized trials: A recent National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/Food and Drug Administration–sponsored conference6 suggested models for prospective trials to address these areas of ignorance. The details of the trials suggested may be debatable, but the importance of actually performing them surely is not.We cannot let this ignorance continue.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2280.081

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207