A Trial Comparing Noninvasive Ventilation Strategies in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To reduce the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely-low-birth-weight infants, clinicians attempt to minimize the use of endotracheal intubation by the early introduction of less invasive forms of positive airway pressure. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1009 infants with a birth weight of less than 1000 g and a gestational age of less than 30 weeks to one of two forms of noninvasive respiratory support--nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) or nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)--at the time of the first use of noninvasive respiratory support during the first 28 days of life. The primary outcome was death before 36 weeks of postmenstrual age or survival with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. RESULTS: Of the 497 infants assigned to nasal IPPV for whom adequate data were available, 191 died or survived with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (38.4%), as compared with 180 of 490 infants assigned to nasal CPAP (36.7%) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.43; P=0.56). The frequencies of air leaks and necrotizing enterocolitis, the duration of respiratory support, and the time to full feedings did not differ significantly between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among extremely-low-birth-weight infants, the rate of survival to 36 weeks of postmenstrual age without bronchopulmonary dysplasia did not differ significantly after noninvasive respiratory support with nasal IPPV as compared with nasal CPAP. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; NIPPV ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00433212; Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN15233270.).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".