MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046021144 · doi:10.1109/embc.2012.6347271

Prediction of extubation readiness in extreme preterm infants based on measures of cardiorespiratory variability

2012· article· en· W2046021144 on OpenAlexaff
Doina Precup, K. A. Brown, Lara J. Kanbar, Jennifer Kaczmarek, Sanjay Chawla, Guilherme SantʼAnna, Robert E. Kearney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMechanical ventilationIntubationEndotracheal intubationNeonatal intensive care unitExtreme learning machineIntensive care unitCardiorespiratory arrestMedicineIntensive care medicineLife supportEmergency medicineComputer scienceAnesthesiaPediatricsMachine learningPhysical therapyArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of extreme preterm infants require endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation (ETT-MV) during the first days of life to survive. Unfortunately this therapy is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and consequently, it is desirable to remove ETT-MV as quickly as possible. However, about 25% of extubated infants will fail and require re-intubation which is also associated with a 5-fold increase in mortality and a longer stay in the intensive care unit. Therefore, the ultimate goal is to determine the optimal time for extubation that will minimize the duration of MV and maximize the chances of success. This paper presents a new objective predictor to assist clinicians in making this decision. The predictor uses a modern machine learning method (Support Vector Machines) to determine the combination of measures of cardiorespiratory variability, computed automatically, that best predicts extubation readiness. Our results demonstrate that this predictor accurately classified infants who would fail extubation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.143 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207