Continuous positive airway pressure: current controversies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Continuous positive airway pressure is increasingly being used in the care of premature infants. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current controversies in the use of neonatal continuous positive airway pressure. RECENT FINDINGS: This review explores information about the devices available for delivering continuous positive airway pressure and the pressures that can be used. It also investigates the controversial issues of using continuous positive airway pressure during resuscitation of premature infants and whether infants who are going to be managed on continuous positive airway pressure should be intubated and given surfactant before continuous positive airway pressure is started. It reviews the use of continuous positive airway pressure and the prevention of chronic lung disease and the use of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and the difficult area of weaning from continuous positive airway pressure. SUMMARY: Existing evidence suggests that short binasal prongs are most effective, nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation is a useful way of augmenting neonatal continuous positive airway pressure and that very premature infants can be managed with neonatal continuous positive airway pressure in the delivery room as part of the resuscitation. Further research is required to determine whether important outcomes are improved with the use of nasal continuous positive airway pressure rather than endotracheal intubation and, if so, whether surfactant should be given to infants so managed. Definition of optimal levels of continuous positive airway pressure for infants at varying stages of their disease also requires further research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".