Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the 1960s and 1970s, pulmonary haemorrhage (PH) occurred mainly in full-term infants with pre-existing illness with an incidence of 1.3 per 1000 live births. Risk factors for PH included severity of illness, intrauterine growth restriction, patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), coagulopathy and the need for assisted ventilation. Presently, PH occurs in 3% to 5% of preterm ventilated infants with severe respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) who often have a PDA and have received surfactant. The cause of PH is thought to be due to rapid lowering of intrapulmonary pressure, which facilitates left to right shunting across a PDA and an increase in pulmonary blood flow. Retrospective case reports and one prospective uncontrolled study have shown promising results for surfactant in treating PH. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of surfactant treatment compared to placebo or no intervention on mortality and morbidities in neonates with PH. SEARCH METHODS: For this update The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2012; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Clinicaltrials.gov; Controlled-trials.com; proceedings (2000 to 2011) of the Annual Meetings of the Pediatric Academic Societies (Abstracts2View) and Web of Science were searched on 8 February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effect of surfactant in the treatment of PH in intubated term or preterm (< 37 weeks) neonates with PH. Infants were included up to 44 weeks' postmenstrual age. The interventions studied were intratracheal instillation of surfactant (natural or synthetic, regardless of dose) versus placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: statistic, would be performed to assess the appropriateness of pooling the data and the results would be reported. MAIN RESULTS: No trials were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated the effect of surfactant in PH were identified. Therefore, no conclusions from such trials can be drawn. In view of the promising results from studies with less strict study designs than a randomised controlled trial, there is reason to conduct further trials of surfactant for the treatment of PH in neonates.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".